Microsoft: We Need for 6 Windows 7 SKUs

[evilchris]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

I would sell the core Win7 for about $79-99, then sell the Ultimate, Pro, Premiums as modules for like $59-79

How can you price the product if you know nothing of Microsoft's financial investment in this product?

Originally Posted by evilchris

How can you price the product if you know nothing of Microsoft's financial investment in this product?

Don't be an ass.

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by Medion

Nekro can't stand me.

i wouldn't say that, you are far far from joe level.

[ASUSEN7900GTX]

here is a comparison
this is Vista ultimate SP1 in Sweden 3400SEK = 416 U.S.D

Now this is a Asus GeForce GTX 260 896MB "TOP" PhysX 3400SEK=416 U.S.D

now is there something wrong with this picture? it wasnt more than say 6 months ago that vista ultimate with no SP1 cost 4800SEK= 587 U.S.D

Asus GeForce GTX 295 1792MB PhysX CUDA 5795SEK=709U.S.D

you see what i mean even a Intel I7 920 is cheaper than vista ultimate with SP1

something is very wrong either the price on OS´s in SWeden or MS needs to cut it big time no wonder so many pirated windwos is used no one can afford a retail woindows unless you have alot of money.

[lightman]

Originally Posted by Medion

For basic internet and word processing,

For basic internet and word processing, even an atom-based pc w/256 MB of ram and Win2k would suffice...

(please note that I don't have anything against Vista specifically, right now. Almost all modern OSes tend to be incredibly bloated and huge resources hogs)

[ViN86]

Originally Posted by mailman2

They may have sold 100M but there aren't any figures on how many of those people went back to XP. Same thing with the bundled copies. I know alot of people went back to the OEMs and bought XP to replace Vista.

whats the difference between me assuming not many went back to XP and you assuming they all went back to XP? THERE IS NONE, you just think youre right because you apply your personal preference and some "stats" you got from you and your friends.

Vista didn't fail because of Apple either.

really? so the Mojave project they launched, all that FUD just came from nowhere? sure, there was a lot in papers and on the internet, but the bulk of it was supplied by Apple's douchebag commercials.

Vista failed because of high hardware requirements. Windows 7 runs on my laptop that cannot run Vista decently with only 1GB ram and 2.4Ghz P4. I dont need more power for a surfing / email laptop so never felt inclined to upgrade. Vista failed because it wouldnt run on older systems, Vista failed because it couldnt run on many laptops. Vista failed because most people didnt have 8 GB of ram, DX10 GPUs and Quad core CPUs which it needs to run "well". Vista failed because it was Vista. You can lie to yourself all you want but thats the fact of the matter, Apple holds what 3% market share? You really think Apple cause Vista to fail? my God have I got some beachfront property to sell you...

hey genius, why dont you look at the XP launch? XP had "high" hardware requirements too. XP was hated at first like Vista was, too. now you cling to it like its your lifeline, and the truth is, its a ****ty OS that was designed around a kernel based on having your own in house administrator. it was not designed for the masses, hence the 3 SP's and the 1000's of security updates. (and it still can be overwhelmbed by viruses and spyware).

and you took my Apple comment literally, which it was not supposed to be. it was an example of how FUD determined the market situation before the product was even fully used.

have you noticed how you and conroejoe and only a handful of ppl have had problems with Vista? hmm, who am i going to put my money on? people who know wtf theyre doing, or you two tools?

Moving on ...MS learned alot from the Vista failure which is why Windows 7 is going to be RTM by the end of the year a comment I made last yet and was ridiculed by the likes of Nekro and Vin for. Imagine that I was right, I knew I was. Windows 7 is being fast-tracked to win back the folks with older PCs that went back to XP, also for the laptop users that Vista just was too much for.

find that post. and windows 7 is vista SP3.

Originally Posted by mailman2

Nekros still always wrong.

nekro's forgotten more than youve ever known.

[six_storm]

Originally Posted by Medion

Those ads usually took a truth, and stretched it into the realm of the absurd. I've heard a lot of people tell me why they won't use Vista, and typically, it's garbage recited from one of these ads. 9 out of 10 times when I ask if this person has ever used Vista, the answer is no. Those ads have been very effective, combined with the Pre-SP1 Vista, of slowing Vista sales. And before SP1 had time to gain traction and reverse the damage done of launch Vista, Win 7 was announced.

I guess this is where we can agree to disagree. I believe that the Apple ads were about 98% on.

Most people I know who have Vista machines hate it because it's so slow. Yes, they have a 1-2 year old PC (around 2GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM) but still, they hate Vista just because it's performance is terrible. I don't know many people at all that haven't tried Vista but all I know is that they tell me that they'd rather have XP any day.

I think Windows 7 is going to be extremely popular because it can run on older hardware where Vista can't.

[mailman2]

Originally Posted by ViN86

whats the difference between me assuming not many went back to XP and you assuming they all went back to XP? THERE IS NONE, you just think youre right because you apply your personal preference and some "stats" you got from you and your friends.


really? so the Mojave project they launched, all that FUD just came from nowhere? sure, there was a lot in papers and on the internet, but the bulk of it was supplied by Apple's douchebag commercials.


hey genius, why dont you look at the XP launch? XP had "high" hardware requirements too. XP was hated at first like Vista was, too. now you cling to it like its your lifeline, and the truth is, its a ****ty OS that was designed around a kernel based on having your own in house administrator. it was not designed for the masses, hence the 3 SP's and the 1000's of security updates. (and it still can be overwhelmbed by viruses and spyware).

and you took my Apple comment literally, which it was not supposed to be. it was an example of how FUD determined the market situation before the product was even fully used.

have you noticed how you and conroejoe and only a handful of ppl have had problems with Vista? hmm, who am i going to put my money on? people who know wtf theyre doing, or you two tools?


find that post. and windows 7 is vista SP3.



nekro's forgotten more than youve ever known.

Nekro fanboy? Yea, your replies are meaningless and WRONG. They were humorous though, I LOL'd at the Mojave stuff.

Mojave was retarded. The people they used were retarded. You might as well just come out and say you love Macs if you thought Mojave wasn't retarded.

Vista doesn't just have high hardware requirments it NEEDS much more hardware that W7 does. I can run W7 on my laptop and its faster. Vista on the other hand barely ran and that was with everything disabled. Vista can't run WELL on most computers ( I mean OEM PCs and 2-3 year old PCs - not the stuff you and I run) and most laptops on the market. Thats the problem with Vista. Windows 7 will remove that barrier and PCs a few years old and laptops will have no problems running Windows 7 - more people sticking with XP will be able to actually "upgrade".

Did I even say I had problems with Vista? Nope, I've just been saying Windows 7 is superior in every way. I am running Vista SP2 on 2 PCs and dont have any glaring issues right now. I'm running W7 on the other 2 machines and they are alot quicker, more responsive and almost everything worked outta the box. I've had a few compatibility issues that I've resolved already.

Nekro's a closet Linux fan.


BTW, let's see Vista do this. ROTFLMAO.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=672

The numbers and charts don’t really tell the full story, though. With identical configurations, Windows 7 was dramatically faster at starting up and shutting down than Vista, and some routine tasks that would grind the Vista machine to a halt completed without incident on the Windows 7 machine.

[Sean_W]

People didn't like XP and Vista for different reasons, XP was a security nightmare from the start, Vista had performance issues from the start and still has. I still dont like XP for the same reasons, the UI is Ugly, the theme is like a plastic kids toy. Windows 2000 was the best in my view and Vista is and was a total failure.

Windows 7 has better performance for a number of reasons, they have no OS except XP that can cope with hardware like netbooks and EeePC's. Windows 7 is a answer to Microsoft's dropping market share and mindshare which is going slowly to OS X and Linux. It won't happen as fast as Internet Explorer's share which is dropping fast but it's a fact Microsoft just dont want decline and they have had that for years now.

[glObalist]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

People didn't like XP and Vista for different reasons, XP was a security nightmare from the start, Vista had performance issues from the start and still has. I still dont like XP for the same reasons, the UI is Ugly, the theme is like a plastic kids toy.

First thing any sane person will do after an XP install is switch to the classic theme (i.e. Win2000 look) and apply all the security updates.

[six_storm]

Originally Posted by glObalist

First thing any sane person will do after an XP install is switch to the classic theme (i.e. Win2000 look) and apply all the security updates.

+1

[Sean_W]

hahahahah, yer it was really that easy, the simple fact was non of the updates stopped blaster and friends. By default updates would come in and install so it wasn't the dumb users who only that got hit.

Pre SP2 XP was the biggest security nightmare around, fact!