Which version of Windows 7 will you buy?

I was hoping MS would have learned their lesson last time that people weren't happy with all the different, bewildering and increasingly expensive versions of Vista. Why, oh why do they do it?

It's not like they produce different installation disc for each version either. It's common knowledge that the Vista discs had all the versions on it, it's the key you type in that determines which one gets installed. And don't give me the BS that it's about hardware requirements, win 7 is supposed to work well on existing hardware that been in use for a couple of years. They all use the same core, just more extras. bells and whistles with the more expensive versions.

Why should I pay more for the extra bits that should be there anyway? MS need to take a leaf out of Apple's book here. One version, with all the features, for a sensible price. The basic win 7 will prob cost about the same as the standard OSX.

Call me cynical, but I can only imagine they do this to make more unjustified money, as they know a lot of people will want the top version that has everything. There's no way on this earth that I'll be paying for an OS that cost more than the netbook did to start with.

 

Well.. windows is not as expensive as you think it cost. It's basically free. The cost is almost covered by the bloatware installed by companies like Acer, Sony, Toshiba ..etc. So OSX is actually like 10 times more expensive than windows.

it is true that different version of windows vista or windows 7 "require" different hardware. You can't expect win7 ultimate edition with aero enabled on a computer with a graphic card without 3d capabilities. Different version of windows 7 sell at different price. MS is selling the license, not the disk. Microsoft is actually pretty smart by integrating all of the windows editions into 1 disk. This way, MS will earn more $$$ and save the environment. It's also easier to crack the OS since all of the versions are on the disk thus crackers have access to all of the windows versions.

You said " there's no way that you'll be paying for an OS that cost more than the netbook". You're right. You'll just buy a laptop with OS preinstalled. :lol:
:lol: Nettop should be free with the legal purchase of windows 7 ultimate.

 

So when you go to PC World or BestBuy or Walmart or Amazon and get a Vista disc in a box, you get bloatware from all those companies? i think not. Plus As you said they are bloatware, so its even stupider that they make you pay 10 times more than you should so you can get a bunch of random crap.

You firstly say you cant expect ultimate to run on a graphics card without 3d, but then say you should get a free netbook with Win 7 Ultimate. So youll get hardware free with software which cant be run on the free hardware???

OP: Home Premium, not that I'll be paying for it. Or I might vista testers got 2 free ultimate keys if they purchased and activated HP.

 

Yes, providing I buy a new computer the licence is cheaper. But what do you do with all that bloatware? Take it off. Therefore the extra you say you do pay for (eg linux netbook compared to XP) is stuff you don't want anyway. It is not possible to compare Win and OSX as you can't buy macs new without an OS installed. Also recheck your prices for buying a boxed version of Win Ultimate Edition compared to OSX (as it is the only version with all the extras that can compare feature for feature).

Therefore if your hardware is that old that it doesn't support many of the new features gained by upgrading to a new OS, there's not a lot of point in upgrading. Stick with the OS you've got that will run faster and smoother. I don't know a single person that purposely bought Vista basic becuase their hardware couldn't handle Aero. They either upgraded hardware, therefore costing even more (much to their chagrin, which they won't want to do again), or stuck with XP. The last OSX release was designed to run on 8 year old G4 machines, no special upgrades necassary. When Vista came out, it wouldn't run on some machines barely 6 months old without an upgrade. Not exactly value for money.

MS is a business, and the main driving force behind any business is profit. I don't belive for one moment their logic behing selling the same disc with different keys is for the good of the environment. And are you really suggesting a good reason that MS put all the versions on one disc is that it's better for crackers? I don't believe for one second that that was a reason behind MS' logic. Seriously, forwarding illegal activity as a valid arguement shows you're struggling to defend your case.

Again, you've completely missed the point. I shouldn't have to buy a new computer to get an updated OS because it's cheaper that way. I have a computer that is perfectly adequately powered to run Win 7. If I do buy a new one, that therefore means my current one not with Win 7 is practically worthless and overnight gas a very low resale value. I shouldn't have to buy a new computer everytime a new OS comes out. Where's the sense in that? Not exactly the environmentally friendly MS anymore, with all these suplurflous PC's clogging up the world. On the other hand, I can safely say my Mac will run up-to-date OS's and software for years to come, without needing an upgrade everytime. And the OS, with every toy I could want is very reasonably priced. That is why macs are value for money. Ingnore the initial payment, it's usuable lifespan gives a lot more value for money.

 

Cost of minor upgrades on Mac OS, $99 ea.

Cost of Service Packs (adding new features, patches and security), free.

I agree with your assessment that the up-front cost is worth it. I bought two XP licences for my desktops back in 2002, and they're running great with all free updates.

 

I wont buy Windows 7 unless it is on the hardware I find I want. Then I will remove it. As for the comparison of books to Windows it doesn't work. I can buy a book and then legally turn around and sell it. If I download Windows or it comes with the computer I can not recoupe the money legally for the software by selling it as the OS is only for the original buyer. People do it all the time but as MS if it is legal and they will tell you no. I have learned that you can get software to do most every thing if not all things legally for free. Morally you should compensate the creator in some manner since I am short on money (living on a fixed income) I do my part by spreading the word when I find a good product.

 

It's a common misconception that OSX versions are just updates because of the numbering system. They are new operating systems. Apple release free updates, bug fixes, tweaks too you know. It's just that new OSX releases are more frequent than windows which makes people think they are incremental updates. The current OSX 10.5 is a far cry from the original 10.0.

The beauty of this IMO is that the transitions from version to version are somewhat smoother than the huge jump between the few years of windows releases (3.1 to 95; 9x to XP; XP to Vista). Again, because the transition is smoother and incremental, people don't realise how much has changed. About the only change Apple made that people really did notice was from the classic environment of everything up to system 9, to OSX. It seems if the GUI doesn't massively change, it's not regarded as a new OS. OSX 10.6 will look a lot like the current 10.5, but almost everything under the hood is being re-written. Therefore being a completely new OS.

I for one can't wait for 10.6 and win 7. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one's better than the other. They really can't be compared like for like on many levels, they are different, with different approches to things. It will be very interesting to see how they both fare.

 

Exactly what I would have written.
10.5 is to 10.4 like XP was to 9x