Really I love ubuntu you get everything for nothing. I heard the pricing for windows 7 and I nearly collapsed Windows 7 Professional is $299, Ultimate is $319, Home Premium is $199. Those prices are very bad. Like my computer cost 400 and it came with Vista basic and if I got Windows 7 Ultimate that would be most of the cost of the laptop. How expensive will netbooks be if they charge $200 for home premium? Even if they give a deal to OEMs you still have to wonder why people are putting up with such outrageous pricing.
Who do they think they are? (…….apple?)
Go get ubuntu 9.10 instead when its released at the end of the month. With the money you save go and buy a new tv or have a good wild night on the town or anything other than giving it to Bill and Steve over at Microsoft.
Please remember: bad information is not good, for no one. We already know that the price of Windows sold with a PC is not 199, 299 ecc… it’s just 49$!
We can discuss everything, but please use real informations
It is that price for retail versions of Windows 7. Ive checked it with a good few sources.
The point is, as long as you’re buying a new computer, you’re not paying the full price if you’re happy with OEM (i.e., non-transferable licence).
Still, unless I was buying a laptop, buying a OEM version would be too restrictive, and I’d probably have to buy the retail version instead, and that’s where price matters.
The problem does not lie in the price though, but in the quality for the price. Windows 7 is indeed a great OS, but considering the shorter release cycles Microsoft is planning, shorter support period, and the lack of convenient tools for work (shell, repositories, effortless integration of latex, compilers,…), I am hesitant to shelve out that much money for something that requires additional effort and investment to make it work for me.
My laptop came with Vista Business 32-bit, and since we have a 64-bit Windows 7 Professional version available as students from our university for free, I intend to make use of it. However, were I to buy the software myself, I would stick with Vista, as the return on investment is minimal for me. That said, Ubuntu still gets the heaviest workload and remains my OS of choice.
Those prices are the sucker’s rate, like what’s written on a car windshield. If someone’s willing to pay that price Microsoft’s willing to take their money, essentially. Give it a few months and the price will magically slip, unannounced. Probably, retail sales are so minuscule that you can consider the $300 MSRP Microsoft’s opening bid to OEMs. Why reveal more than you have to?
I work academic IT for a community college, and it seems most people are aware of alternative pricing. We were constantly hounded for it until Windows 7 was made available for free via MSDN AA. Even got a few passive aggressive emails politely pointing out announcements and website howto’s on enable win7 downloads. And thus another cohort of students become part-time Windows salespeople.
What’s worse is that between cheap academic licensing and piracy, Windows can seem a reasonable proposition. But standing here in IT, it seems obvious that licensing compliance is a major thorn in managing thousands of desktops and dozens of servers. Woe unto you if the desktops are running but the licensing server is not.
I use Ubuntu exclusively but my wife MUST have windows for her job. I’ll gladly pay for W7Pro although I expect I’ll be able to get it cheaper than $299.
Just because Linux Distros are free doesn’t negate the monetary value of Windows or other operating systems. Additionally, Windows comes with a certain level of support (you can call them). Go start buying support contracts for Linux. Now there is some outrageous pricing, in some cases more expensive than Windows.
Actually Windows doesnt come with phone support or much support at all. It comes with really everything ubuntu comes with and that is the backing of a company in microsoft’s case they are a very big company.
Actually I looked at canonical’s phone support and its very reasonable (like $40 for basic desktop support phone support). Also the community supports many linux distros places like launchpad and ubuntu forums are great places to get info and fix problems.
Incorrect. Not only have I used phone support for a stupid Outlook corruption issue years ago (19 months after purchasing the license), my wife used phone support for her new computer which came with Vista. You do get some level of support with your Retail Windows license.
Now, find yourself a Canonical support contract that gives you 9 to 5 phone support for more than a year, covering more than just installation. What’s that cost? Hmmmm?
Its still €40 a year so across the lifetime of windows vista you would only pay €120.
Nope, the Starter Support option includes phone support for installation only. You need the Advanced Support option.
You get what you pay for.
Not really.
Thats only if you build your laptop yourself. Big retailers get Windows oem versions for about 80-90$
hi, i think like you, i use kubuntu karmic (in beta 9.10 release) I’m really happy, I discovered linux with ubuntu (feisty i think so) 3 years ago, and each release it’s always with a lot of well surprises, graphical interface, more friendly, wonderful functionalities thats simplifies daily tasks with my box. I love KDE, I can customize my desktop, it’s simply beautiful. I don’n know the system requirements for windows 7, i don’t think that with my Sempron 1800 Mhz, 1GB ram i could be use windows 7.. i don’t want accept that I am forced to by a megaPC to use i newer software like was the case with vista… With Linux i can use even the really olds PC’s (probably not with ubuntu but with tinycore for example, even a laptop toshiba Pentium MMX 233 MHz 32 MB ram !! ). I don’t want and I don’t need expense my money with microsoft. i prefer a good wild night on the town like you say
Well, Ubuntu is not free for me as it’s that time of year again for a donation. Ubuntu combined with my 3yr old Dell, is one of my most trusted pieces of gear. Ubuntu, made available to me by thousands upon thousands of ordinary people from around the world, I just cannot enjoy and rely on it for nothing.
Well if everyone spent the money they save from not buying Windows on support from canonical then it would support itself. Well I pay for ubuntu by helping out with different stuff like answering questions helping out with documentation etc….
Remember, Upgrade and Full Packaged Product prices are different. Your numbers are for Full (i.e. you pay less if you already have Vista or XP)
I concur, for many people Windows provides enough value to justify its cost.
I use Linux not because it is cheaper but because it is, for what I do, better.
I believe that ultimately Linux can be better for what many many people want to do.
Linux opens up new device classes for Netbooks, even if it is by forcing lower prices for Windows. Without Linux, there would be no affordable sub-notebooks for middle-class folk that ran any OS.
Also, comparing software to the price of the computer is kind of like comparing the price of knives to the drawer they are kept in.
Exactly, and that’s what I think the various Linux distributions should advocate, not the price. It sure is nice that it’s free. But the main advantage is that it offers a different, more convenient working experience in many cases for many people.
Please don’t bring up Apple. Especially by using family packs the OS X is dirt cheap for the value it provides. Also I have witnessed now several Windows 7 installations. They work. Scarily well. They seem really rock solid, fast, and even the usability has improved.
But the simple fact is that all apple products are very expensive. Windows 7 may be improved from what vista was but in terms of cost its not worth it.
Wrong. When people assess the value of an Apple product, they tend to look only at the hardware specs. Well, over the years I came to prefer build quality and design over raw performance, because what good is a plastic high-end laptop that will break on you right after your warranty runs out, squeaks and bends on all places? What good is a piece of fine hardware that roars like an airplane? To me, none. I prefer, nice, high-end build quality, and reliability.
That’s what you get with Apple. They also throw in super-nice design and a few extras (like the backlit keyboard), and that’s why you’re paying more compared to some other brand that gives you the same hardware-wise, but not quality-wise.
There are PC brands that give you the sort of reliability I’m talking about, but not the design – like Lenovo, HP, and maybe even Dell. But you can’t run OS X on them, you don’t get the nice design, and in the end (Dell especially), they cost you more or less the same (HP less, Lenovo roughly the same).
There is a deeper discussion here about knowing your core market. Apple shoots for a specific market demographic that value design and reliability and are not trying to compete on price. And by value I mean willing to pay $$ for it. Apple doesn’t need to be the overall market leader to stay a profitable company, they just have to cultivate a segment of the market that is willing to pay a premium for the design effort they put into their products. That is exactly the market Canonical does not have with Ubuntu.. but needs.
Canonical still has to show its cultivating a market segment around its for-pay product/service offerings. The Ubuntu community that Canonical has cultivated so far seems to put a heavy emphasis on the $0 price tag and not so much emphasis on paying money in return for anything Canonical is actually doing to push Ubuntu forward.
Whatever grassroots spread Ubuntu effort exists seems to be divorced from any sort of spread Canonical support services effort and that’s a real problem for Canonical. The lack of community discussion about Canonical’s services indicates to me that the Ubuntu user community doesn’t actually value Canonical’s for-pay offerings to any significant extent.
That’s in stark contrast to Apple users who are walking commercials for Apple’s for-pay products.
-jef
Something to remember is that a fresh install of Windows 7 is capable of accessing the internet (assuming it recognizes the system’s network chipsets) and little else. Ubuntu, on the other hand, comes with OpenOffice and GIMP.
Which is hardly a valid argument, given that Windows users can install these right afterwards, as they are free software.
Just like they can install a score of other FOSS programs as well. And so can the Ubuntu users, only with the added convenience of repositories.
But still it takes a bit of doing to install all of the stuff after the windows install. Ubuntu is ready to use out of the box.
I hardly ever need an office suit, so to me, the default choice of OpenOffice being installed equals to Ubuntu having bloatware installed by default (I typeset my papers and presentations in latex).
But yeah, some people will consider this an advantage, because a lot of materials are in the .doc or .xls format and they will appreciate that they don’t need to be bothered with installing a program to be able to read them.
Maybe I just didn’t like the example – a better one would be the inclusion of a PDF/PS reader, which does come out of the box in both Ubuntu and Kubuntu (in different flavors, mind you), and is probably even more important then an office suit.
Shane:
Please keep in mind two things: First of new computers come with Windows pre-installed OEM license that must be placed by 90 USD. Second, for neetbooks is limited to the Starter edition, which has several limitations and that in turn limits the manufacturers of features that can add to the computers, such as 10.1″ screen, 160GB on HD and 1GB RAM
But still the $90 is still steep enough and I already stated I know OEMs get a deal on it. Oh and it isnt $90 for every OEM either they still have to haggle with Microsoft. The netbook edition of ubuntu is free so the starter edition of windows is really bad then.
Don’t get me wrong here, I am an Ubuntu user and occasional Windows user (cause sadly, Linux doesn’t yet provide everything I need on the desktop). Thing is, sure it’s expensive, but all the support for all the drivers under the sun, plug and play, advertisement and paying all the developers has a cost. It doesn’t explain why it’s so ridiculously expensive, but your comparison seems unfair. Especially when OEM licenses won’t cost you more than $40 (no one here buys a bare computer and then a Windows license, that would be stupid). Anyway, not meaning to play the devil’s advocate or anything, I appreciate the work you guys are doing, it’s consolidating my freedom as a computer user everyday, but let’s not try not to point fingers so easily, Windows 7 is a vast improvement over the piece of crap that Vista was, they’re *somehow* opening up, things are changing for the best of the users’ interests.
I dont agree I would love to get a bare pc (or one with ubuntu by default) because I wouldnt have to pay for windows. OEM licences do cost money if you look at dell for instance. You can get a ubuntu netbook for €100 cheaper than windows.
Not everything on windows is compatible out of the box unlike linux witch can support a lot without any effort. Canonical hires developers to make ubuntu better and they still dont charge for use so that argument is invalid.
Well, I had to wait a whole release to be able to use Ubuntu on my EliteBook 8530p, compared to running Vista out of the box with no setup required whatsoever, so this is a moot point.
Yes, once the device does have support, it generally stays there and you don’t need to configure anything. It also supports legacy systems, which is great. But it struggles with newer things, even standard ones.
I’m not saying one is better than the other, it’s just that this is not a very good point for an argument.
Well, no, using retail versions of Windows is not a stupid idea. I really don’t want to have to buy a new licence every time I decide to swap a disk.
It’s doable on laptops, because usually all you do is just slap more RAM in and be done with it. Not so on desktops, if you intend to upgrade along (CPU, GPU, …).
I apologize if my previous comment was misunderstood. I say that a new computer has a lower licensing cost for Windows, not that this is fact is better. I said that does not match the figures commented on, and still without saying that this monopolistic practice on the one hand traps manufacturers and on the other confuses consumers into believing falsely that it is ‘Free’. The only country where there are reports that a process started by monopolistic practices by the fact that the OEM version is cheaper than the boxed one, is Russia. This should be worldwide.
On the other hand, to mention that the Starter edition is more limited, I was referring to the fact that it is really “limited” . Shane mentions the Home edition for notebooks, but for these Microfsoft established a highly cropped version of Win7.
First, there should be no different editions, the Ultimate should be the standard, at least the equivalent of features that Linux offers. Worse, between the Ultimate and the Professional version is a large price differential and few additional features (three basically)
One more thing: I mentioned the Ubuntu Netbook Remix which indeed is a different edition from Ubuntu, the difference with the Windows ones is the fact that the UNR has an special designed interface and it is tested with notebooks in mind to setup it specifically for those equipments. This is a special edition with a plus versus one with limitations as the Starter Edition.
How about making a donation to your favorite upstream open source project, or to the FSF ?
Ubuntu can’t run certain software so you, or your boss has to buy windows. E.g. Office, Delphi, Halo2, Quake4. It is over-priced but in our outdated version of democracy we don’t get to vote on prices
Open office. Quake 4 can run on ubuntu. Why play halo2.