Price of XP Pro? ......Hopefully not as much as Win2k Pro, L

[Questionnaire 0]

Actualy, the only reason ive never tried Win2k Pro as of yet is becuase it cost to much! From the EB website:

 

Windows 2000 Professional Full

(Usually Ships Within 24 Hours)

(Ships to U.S. Only)

Price: $269.99

Category: Home Office

ESRB Rating: N/A

 

Get farkin real!! I wouldnt pay that much to have Bill Gates himself kiss my full moon, lol! And people wonder why w4r3z is so popular these days! THE AVERAGE PERSON CANT AFFORD SOFTWARE THESE DAYS BECUASE OF EVERYTHING BEING >OVERPRICED<!!! So do you guys think XP Pro will be priced better? (Fuck home edition, dual cpu "support" should be standard these days) I'd say the prices below are what I would consider fair and keep me from going the w4r3z route:

 

Promo upgrade: $50.00

Upgrade: $70.00

Full: $129.00 ($150.00 absolute maximum )

 

Whats your guys opinion on what the prices should be for XP Pro? I personally think they'd make more money lowering the prices=more people pay for it!

 

Read this article sometime when you get the chance: (you to Micro$oft )

 

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> But in my opinion, many software companies fail to understand the very market they serve, and should seek a better balance between what they charge and how many copies they hope to sell. It is clear to me that, as computers and music hardware become cheaper by the week, the real growth is happening at the low end. I would much prefer to sell 70,000 copies of a program for than 1,000 copies for 9, but it seems many companies are unable to understand this basic marketing concept. Moreover, the more a company charges for a product, the more irrational and protective they become. I know from my own success as a software company president that the key to making a lot of money is to sell a great product for a great price, and without alienating the very customers you depend on.

</font>

 

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/739DF48C566E1D33862567DE001BE355

 

READ IT!

 

[This message has been edited by Questionnaire (edited 17 April 2001).]

[clutch 1]

If the average person can afford a dual cpu box, then the average person can afford a dual cpu version of Windows.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[sapiens74 0]

With all the money they spend on R&D especially on Xp 260 bucks isnt alot considering. I spend that 2 times a year on CPU's and Video Cards, and Ram. Thats over 1k just for upgrades I don't need.

 

Most people get the Upgrade or get it with their new system. Besides, Win2k is only $150 or so for oem, with the purchase of a hard drive or motherboard.

 

Just pick up an oem copy next time you upgrade. The only version thats 260 is the Full retail, which the people that need to buy it can afford it

 

 

Just my 2 cents

[Son_Gohan 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

clutch If the average person can afford a dual cpu box, then the average person can afford a dual cpu version of Windows.
------------------
Regards,

clutch

sapiens26 With all the money they spend on R&D especially on Xp 260 bucks isnt alot considering. I spend that 2 times a year on CPU's and Video Cards, and Ram. Thats over 1k just for upgrades I don't need.
Most people get the Upgrade or get it with their new system. Besides, Win2k is only 0 or so for oem, with the purchase of a hard drive or motherboard.

Just pick up an oem copy next time you upgrade. The only version thats 260 is the Full retail, which the people that need to buy it can afford it


Just my 2 cents

</font>

Just one word: LINUX

[Bursar 0]

And why are you looking at the full version anyway?

 

Get an upgrade. It's much cheaper. My upgrade to Win2k from NT 4 cost me around £100 (IIRC). You can do a full clean install from the upgrade CD, so there is no worries from that point of view. [Edit] The EB website lists the upgrade for $179, so it's not that bad.[/Edit]

 

I would expect to pay the same again for XP Pro as well (don't want no consumer level rubbish on my machine thank you very much!)

 

[This message has been edited by Bursar (edited 17 April 2001).]

[sapiens74 0]

In regards to the Linux show of support, with all due respect I cannot do half the things I want, and have to do, running Linux.

 

If it was honestly a viable alternative I would have considered it before. Linux is too complicated and to be quite honest the Versions too fragmented to even consider. Sure a Linux guru can have a nice box running, But it cannot compete even remotely for what I need from my machine.

 

Microsoft makes good products, albeit they are way too aggresive, in their business paractices. You know Abobe charges damn near 1k for their Photoshop series of APPS, and I have seen many other Professional Apps run that high or higher. 260 Bucks for an OS which runs the Machine is not a lot.

 

But you cannot honestly say that Linux is in the same market. Yeah its free, thats the problem, too many versions and they are all named like 2.04123 and stuff like that. Intel learned a while bck to start naming thier products with a little more catchy names, cause not everyone is a techie.

 

 

Microsoft has given windows users what we've alwyas wanted ,in XP, ease of use for the non-tech person and Complete control for the ADMIN in us all. ANd I believe at a small cost considering. Linux gives only the latter.

 

I have a little analogy, hopefully someone will understand where I'm coming from.

 

Had this friend in High School that was a real metal head. Got me into Metallica. WHen everyone else started liking them too, he stopped.

I have this theory that when people are into something that no one else likes it gives them a feeling of being unique. All my old tech friends from DOS days are into Linux now, You wanna know why, is it because Linux is superior, of Course not. Its because when Windows 95 came out it let us non command prompt guys catch up and in some ways surpass them. Now everybody and thier brother is a technician (not that I condone that hehe) Upgrades and stuff can be done by anyone just a out reading the instructions.

 

Hell i talked my mom into a hard drive installtion over the Phone. SHe opened the box and fixed it and it actually worked.

 

Anyway my point being is that Linux I feel lets techs feel that they know something the rest of the world doesnt. It was never made for the workstation environment, at least not what I consider one anyway. And i feel that our hatred for Microsoft has given us the hope that Linux is destined to take over windows spot as the next OS of choice.

 

Hey if i had to learn it I would, I gotta make a living too, but having a choice, Ill take Microsoft solution for now.

 

Just my 2 cents (well maybe more than too but whos counting )

[DosFreak 2]

Pro=Work

9x=Home

Whistler Personal=Home

 

work=costs more

home=cheaper

 

Grow up.,

[BladeRunner 0]

I got Win 3.x with my very first system.

I then purchased a Win95 upgrade.

Transfered the licenses over to each new machine I build.

Purchased a Win98 Upgrade.

Was given a Win98SE upgrade by Microsoft.

Finally purchased a Win9x - Win2k upgrade for about £100.

Very reasonable really, obviously I use the OS every single time I switch my PC on, so £100 for 18 months of trouble free computing I feel is a bargain.

Win2k - WinXP Professional, well as this is a version upgrade rather than a totally different OS (Win98 - Win2k) I expect to pay in the region of £80 - £100 again, no problem.

If you have never purchased an OS before then yes a full version is going to cost more, obvious?

[Questionnaire 0]

Hhhmmm.... I still say most software is overpriced, end of story! *sigh* I hate the thought of upgrade CD's and not the full one because I heard so many people had problems with the upgrade CD of Millenium, called it a shit OS, then later getting the full CD version and no problems....Then everyone agreed it was a problem with the upgrade CD's. Well i'm getting the full no matter what! Even though I already have the full CD to 98se, NT 4.0, and Millennium. Better start putting money aside for it now, lol!

[BladeRunner 0]

I've always used Upgrades as Full products without a single issue.

Take Win2k for example.

Boot from the Upgrade CD, about 2 minutes into the upgrade it asks for a prrof of upgrade.

Eject Win2k CD, Insert Win98SE CD.

Checks the CD for 10 seconds and then setup continues.

Eject Win98SE CD, Insert Win2k CD.

That's it, job done.

When I ever had to re-install Win98 it was the same story, boot from the floppy, start installation, insert Win95 Upgrade CD when prompted.

I've never had a single problem with using upgrades.

I've nevr tried WinME because, well it's a crap OS that will never go anywhere near a system I build/own.

[Ulden 0]

All I have to say is that it is nice going to a university that has a deal with MS. I will be paying $5 for my copy of Windows XP, just as I paid $5 for my copy of Win2k, Win98se, WinMe...I guess I can't complain now, but it is going to hurt when I graduate and have to start paying full price for OS upgrades again. I do however agree with the fact that it is not rediculous to ask for more for a business OS, but anything over $150 for a retail full version of a consumer OS is pushing it.

[Down8 0]

I think anything under $300 for full retail is fine, when you consider that you can pay $90 for SuSE Linux, which is supposed to be free, and all you get is 60 days of installation support.

 

For all the extra crap you get by going with the de facto standard, I think that much is fine. Hell, I buy processors OEM, software shouldn't be any different.

 

-bZj

[Brian Frank 0]

Well, the main reason they charge is just to pay for the labor and stuff to make the versions. You can always download Linux and burn it to cd. Unfortunately, that takes way too long even with dsl.

 

If I jump to XP, I will buy 1 copy between my machines. I refuse to buy the same software twice. I'll just wait till I can get around the activation code.

Upgrade or full, it doesnt matter.

If I could get a legal copy of XP final for like $50, sure I'd buy two then, but Im not about to buy the same OS at nearly $200 a sh0t.

But Im not sure If MS will have promo upgrades like they did for ME.

[Down8 0]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian Frank:
<STRONG>Well, the main reason they charge is just to pay for the labor and stuff to make the versions. You can always download Linux and burn it to cd. Unfortunately, that takes way too long even with dsl.</STRONG>

They charge $90 to burn a CD? God, I'm in the wrong business. ;(

I never spent more than 1 day downloading a Linux ISO. 768k sDSL ruled... back when I had it.

-bZj

[Brian Frank 0]

Your kidding about Linux just coming on one cd right? Ive gotten a distro with at least 4 cds for $50. Plus the sheer amount of tools and apps you get with it save you from having to download the stuff in the first place.

[SHS 0]

More like 2 CD with most of distro that avg

But I hat 5 to 6 Windows Manager plus 97% of time you all most have install everthing win compileing that can be a pain ahhhhhh heheh

by that way they talk windows being bloatware hmm that funny linux all ready 2x big then windows hehe.

[Questionnaire 0]

Ok, how do these prices sound? Becuase we care about the hard devolopment MS does for us, lol!

 

Promo: $60.00

Upgrade: $89.99

Full: $179.99 ($199.99 Absolute Maximum )

 

Or overprice it and...

 

W4r3z $Free

 

 

Do those prices sound more fair for both consumer and MS? And I said dual cpu support should be a standard not because everyone can afford a dual cpu rig! But because if it's a standard, then more apps/games would start supporting SMP! Not saying just because the OS/Software supports SMP that im gonna go out and build a dual cpu rig. But it would be a nice option for people who can afford it, always knowing the option is/will always be there when your ready!

 

[ 19 April 2001: Message edited by: Questionnaire ]

[clutch 1]

Just because an OS may support dual cpus, does not mean that applications will. There are MANY NT servers that have been deployed over the years with applications that are not truly multithreaded. It would seem to me that every database application should be multithreaded to scale well (which is what most database installations need to do anyway), yet I have software that is for Unix and NT that is not multithreaded (at least not in NT). Having dual CPUs is still nice for the server, don't get me wrong, but there isn't a performance increase like there would be with another app that supports SMP natively. I just don't get the impression that there is a need SMP capability for the soccer mom who is trying to get the pics off of her newest photocd to send to grandparents. If there are many enterprise applications that don't support SMP, then why should there be a home OS that does?

[Questionnaire 0]

Quote:

If there are many enterprise applications that don't support SMP, then why should there be a home OS that does?

That's my whole point! Not many apps or what have ya support dual cpu because the average person doesnt have a dual cpu OS! So why would there be any dual cpu supported apps when most folks run Win9x? So therefor, the lack therof is possible because the mainstream used OS just doesnt support it?? Just think how badass a dual 1.5GHz gaming rig would be, lol!

(Or do I need to get some sleep, hehe?)

[ 19 April 2001: Message edited by: Questionnaire ]

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

Dual 1.5GHz would be sweet....but unfortunatly...still unavailable. At least thats what my sources indicate...plz...tell me if im wrong...cause id like a dual system, then all i need to do is look into the lottery...

 

The most part of the problem is though for SMP is that a end-user at home doesnt really need that much power for the processing they do. Like clutch said a soccer mom wont pay +$600-$1000 more for a dual processor when all she is doing is rippin pics and emailing em off. But, on the other hand, it would be nice to just have that option open.

 

just my thoughts, kinda on auto-pilot...studying for digital final. 8)

[EddiE314 0]

Quote:

Originally posted by DosFreak:
<STRONG>Pro=Work
9x=Home
Whistler Personal=Home

work=costs more
home=cheaper

Grow up.,</STRONG>

----------

and what if i decide that i want to run dual cpu's for sh1ts and giggles? does that mean i should go out and buy Pro after i've bought Personal? I don't think so. As for now, i could settle for the home edition since i'm only running a single cpu. A lot people have come to accept Win2k Pro not as a business OS but a home one as well, xp pro doesn't HAVE to be for business and the Home edition doesn't HAVE to be for Home use. Now server and advanced server are a different story, you wouldn't use XP AdvSvr for playing CS or Q3 would you? No, you wouldn't. You've always had a positive attitude toward things and have never been one to flame, but you shouldn't just treat people as if they were idiots unless they asked a completely "off-the-wall" stupid question. Telling someone to "grow up" isn't very nice and after reading that comment, my only words to you are "Practice what you preach"
C:\
C:\Dos\
C:\Dos\Flame\
C:\EddiE314\Reply\

[BladeRunner 0]

"and what if i decide that i want to run dual cpu's for sh1ts and giggles? does that mean i should go out and buy Pro after i've bought Personal?"

 

Why shouldn't you have to go out and purchase the Pro edition?

You made your choice, you purchased the home edition, what makes you think your entitled to some kind of free upgrade?

If I go out and buy a 1.6L car and then in the future decide I want more power, should I be able to go back and get a free engine upgrade to 1.8L?

You will take a look at the list of features of each version of the OS and base your purchase on this.

So you don't have a dual-CPU now, but you are considering one in the future then why are you even contemplating the Home edition?

You know that this wont support dual-CPU's so it shouldn't even be an option to you.

As with everything computer related you should never false economise, always buy more than you need and grow into it rather than purchasing exactly what you need at that time and finding you have out-grown it a few months later.

 

I really don't see why people have such an issue with having to actually go out and buy a copy of an OS for every machine they own.

If you don't want to spend the money then don't but why people feel the world or rather MS owes them a living is beyond me.

[Questionnaire 0]

Number one, I 100% agree with what EddiE just said. No quoting needed here. Number two, since even on the M$ site they said somewhere that they expect a fair majority of home users that are power users to be using pro and on the other hand they said they realized that a fair amount might use home for business! Now let me get to my next point- The whole point, the big shindig over XP was it's finaly merging the business OS with the home user. Hasnt this been the main thing since we all heard about it(XP)? So dividing them once again is kinda defeating the big thing thats its suppose to be about! Why not just can lame home edition and make pro be for both? Like the whole point of XP and just name it Windows XP? No Pro, Home, Soccer Mom, Power User etc versions! (Excluding the advanced webserver versions) Price it somewhere inbetween what home and pro would cost and all confusion solved, lol! This is how it should be:

 

Xp Home = Cancelled because its like soooooo pointless when Pro is almost the same exact thing and the point of XP, its big hype is that its suppose to finaly merge the business OS with the home user. (Have I said this enough yet? lol) Or possibly just release it on OEM, soccer mom little baby systems?

 

XP Pro = Just named Windows XP, for business, and for the home user just like the main hype-up of XP! And just price it inbetween what Pro and Home would be. Why make two whole versions when they're so close to being the same exact thing? D'OH!

 

 

Ok, and on to number three finally (are we having fun yet?):

 

Quote:

I really don't see why people have such an issue with having to actually go out and buy a copy of an OS for every machine they own.

 

Um, please be serious here, lol. They're having enough of a "issue" with all the w4r3z out there getting people to buy one copy, for one machine let alone paying an upwards of $269.99 + Tax a crack for two or more personally owned and run machines! ROTFLMFAO!! You cant realy expect someone to pay an upwards of $269.99 + Tax a crack if they personally own two-four machines that's only used by that one person, personally! Doesn't matter, this whole discusion is pointless. Most of you guys must jerkoff to windows splash screens instead of pictures of pretty females, lol! Becuase by the sounds of some of yaz, you sound like you would let Gates ram ya up the butte in a heartbeat (Or do you just work for M$? Be honest, I am )

 

They overprice and be lame = people gonna get it for free They can have it any way they want it! I will win either way

 

Oh and BTW you M$ zealots, lets not forget so soon how M$ equaly rips us off! Windows Millennium anyone?

 

[ 19 April 2001: Message edited by: Questionnaire ]

[BladeRunner 0]

Well isn't it nice to see that the kids haven't had to go back to school yet.

 

"Most of you guys must jerkoff to windows splash screens instead of pictures of pretty females, lol"

 

...and the point of this little childish outburst was what exactly?

 

"Becuase by the sounds of some of yaz, you sound like you would let Gates ram ya up the butte in a heartbeat (Or do you just work for M$? Be honest, I am )"

 

OK, once again picking around the comments that make you sound like a 5 year old.

No, I don't work for Microsoft although I do work in the industry - hay kid, working is where you have to go out and earn some money.

I work in the kind of position that means I need to evaluate different systems before rolling them out to users.

If I thought there was a valid alternative to Microsoft products for half of the roll-outs I do I would look into them, as there aren't any I don't.

Do I love Microsoft products?

Well, Windows 95 certainly releaved a lot of my technical support calls when it was first released.

Windows 2000 has totally changed my work and home environment - I simply don't have people telling me their system has crashed, so once again yes I love Windows 2000.

XP is shaping up to be a good release, not one I'll roll out at work because I feel it doesn't offer much extra functionality to our Win2k network.

I may roll out a couple of WinXP servers and integrate them into our Win2k domains.

So yes, once again I love that Microsoft product too.

 

"They overprice and be lame = people gonna get it for free They can have it any way they want it! I will win either way"

 

Microsoft are once again about to release an OS that offers perfect compatibility and reliability.

They will also be pricing it at a very fair price, I really can't see a problem with £100.

Now if you feel Microsoft are being 'lame' because they are charging for their products that's your opinion I guess.

You win either way - well great going kid, just remember to turn off your PC before you go to school, don't go wasting that electricity.

 

"Oh and BTW you M$ zealots, lets not forget so soon how M$ equaly rips us off! Windows Millennium anyone?"

 

I evaluated Windows ME as soon as it was available in Release Candidate form.

I felt that the OS didn't offer and features that Win98 didn't already give me.

If certainly wasn't a valid alternative for Win2k here at work.

For these reasons I felt upgrading the Win98 machines to WinME wasn't valid.

So no, Microsoft didn't rip us off, we evaluated, we looked, we decided not to purchase, we paid £0, so no, we came out of that quite well.

As for first time buyers, getting WinME pre-installed on their systems wasn't such a bad thing, saves them downloading all the patches for Win98.

 

I hope you enjoy and continue to rip OS's.

Companies like Microsoft spend millions in development of new technologies with the sole intention of allowing many people to get the final product for nothing.

I shall not rise to your bait any more, you've said your piece, although it reads like a 5 year old wrote it.

Continue to bash Microsoft, it's obviously what you do and like doing best.

Maybe once you start to work in the industry you'll wake up and realise that Microsoft products don't take up the vast % of the market place for no reason.

[sapiens74 0]

The last time I heard that kinda Anti-Microsoft fanatasim was from an old lady I sold a G3 to.

 

 

So I am gonna tell you what I told her

 

 

BUY A FREAKING MAC.

 

 

You've earned it