What Microsoft has to do to beat OS X?

Uh, how about remove the copy protection, artificially hobbled versions, and upgrade-only copies? A single OS X license might be more expensive, but you get a full copy of everything OS X has to offer.

Still not sure why they feel they're competing with Apple anyway - with Apple's small market share, they're just acting like the anti-competitive bastards they've always been.

But I do love Windows 7 for my gaming machine....

Im Confused

If someone can shed some light on this for me...

I took advantage of the pre-order for Windows 7 Professional when they were having the half off pre-order. That cost me $99 for my copy instead of the MSRP of $199. Now it sounds like they are lowering the price if you have Windows Vista Ultimate (or the equivalent to the Win7 version you are getting) or lowering the price overall. So wtf am I missing here. Are they lowering the price even more or did I miss something?

/I may get accused of being a troll but Ive been sleeping on my desk all day at work and am a little out of it because of how dead it is here....to many numbers after a 7 hour nap make my brain hurt :)

Microsoft having to compete with Apple's OS?

Uh, how about remove the copy protection, artificially hobbled versions, and upgrade-only copies? A single OS X license might be more expensive, but you get a full copy of everything OS X has to offer.

Still not sure why they feel they're competing with Apple anyway - with Apple's small market share, Microsoft is just proving to be the anti-competitive bastards they've always been.

But I do love Windows 7 for my gaming machine....

US centric news

Because, of course, here in the UK, the family pack has been delayed to...whenever (because it's the full E version, natch), with no price point set, whilst, on Amazon at least, the cheap pre order price has risen to £69.93.

And of course, no favours to those burned on Vista.

I really don't understand their war with Apple, or even linux. The market shares are tiny and aimed at different segments; Linux for the problem solvers who love writing web pages on how to get sound working thru' Ubuntu, and Apple for the upwardly mobile who favour style over... heh, not going there, who just want to get their job done (or, you know, play Sims3).

MS sell to the hardware, PCWorld and Walmart crowd with 90%(?) market share. Yea, they maybe lost to the iPod thing, but they got the X360 crowd.

Apple are insignificant...but MS just can't keep their eyes off them

Globally, Apple's share is insignificant. People who buy Apple hardware know exactly what they are buying into. They're buying a Mac, and they're fully aware of the implications/benefits that come with it. And in the scheme of things, and as probably expected by Apple, it's only a few million people every year who ever make that choice.

But the irony here of course is that Ballmer talks about Apple being small, but yet he and Turner just can't stop talking about them.

And I just don't understand why.

So why might I want to give MS some money...

In an effort to be fair, I googled 'windows 7' and the first hit was http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/what-is?os=other - ok, they've noticed I'm not using windows, so far so good.

Not a lot of content on the page, but 'see what makes it different' looked a possibility and took me to ../why-choose?os=other (I elide for brevity) and I note once again the 'os=other' observation. On this page I am offered three reasons:

(a) simplifies everyday tasks;

- I can share music (presumably non-DRM-encumbered, though that's not stated), documents, printers, and 'everything else' (viruses?) with other PCs running W7 in the house. And presumably anyone else in range of my wireless network.

(b) works the way I want;

- apparently, I want it to sleep and resume faster, and to support 64-bit and multicore processors. I can't help feeling that it'll have to work hard to improve on the couple of seconds my current OS takes (an OS that also knows about 64 bit processors and multicores).

(c) make new things possible

- I'll be able to connect to networks with a couple of clicks; just like I can now. With the right hardware I'll be able to use Windows Touch to flip through files and even 'paint'. Since I can connect to networks with a couple of clicks now, and I don't have the hardware for Touch, this is hardly a compelling reason.

Ho-hum. We proceed. There's an interesting looking link - take a tour. First thing it does is ask me to install a windows media plugin, but it seems to work without it (so why did it ask?). Apparently, the target market can't read anything like a document, so we have to waste bandwidth with a chirpy young lady telling me what I could have read. I'm particularly impressed with the new facility to 'just type the name of the programme' - didn't that used to be called a command line?

Ahh, I can't go on. Having suffered the remaining videos, I'm told of 'ooh, windows that snap to the edge of the screen' and 'ooh, favourites done in a new way' and 'ooh, frequently used documents' and 'ooh, view one computer's contents from another'. No mention of how to stop people viewing my documents from another computer, no mention of security, no mention of virus protection, no mention of firewalls, no mention of DRM, no mention of network storage or network printers - surely a far more logical method of remote services than having to keep a computer turned on all the time?

I'm obviously not the target audience. I can certainly see no compelling reason to send MS lots of dollars to tie myself down to their latest and greatest. The only reason I'm ever likely to see this is the next time I buy a computer and MS have persuaded the maker not to ship bare machines.

Bah.

The model isn't flawed, it's broken. But MS can't survive without forcing regular upgrades/updates down people's throats, hence an unending cycle of unnecessary and unwanted changes that suffice only to break perfectly workable, usable, and above all familiar applications on a regular basis.

Stand by for the new, improved, and incompatible Windows 8.

Pay now, pay later?

Or another way of putting it, buy our crippled products now and we will make sure you have to pay us to upgrade in the near future.

SUCKS! The vendors want it because it will allow them to punt cheaper PCs. Microsoft want to do it for the reasons stated in the article.

With Chrome on the horizon and Linux (Ubuntu) becoming a more and more attractive alternative for home PCs. I'm amazed that Microsoft don't try to do something good and straight up rather than underhanded manipulation like this.

Still, it's their money. It's just a shame that we end up using the tat.

Upgrade?

If I buy a new PC today, I can upgrade to Ubuntu ulitmate for $0.00. This will give me better security, better multi-tasking, better memory management, and access to thousands of free-as-in-beer applications. And get a free upgrade to the next version in October. Or choose from many other free Linux distros.

Or I could just get a mac and forget about hardware, operating systems and all that religious nonsense and just get on with using it.

How F**king Much?

Note to Microsft:

In case you haven't noticed, there's a f**king Global Recession going on right now, people are NOT going to pay your, frankly, rip-off prices. I run both XP and Ubuntu, quite happy where I am with them right now. So unless you're going to pitch your pricing a LOT more realistically (I'd suggest around £40 for a single, full version of W7 Home Premium), my guess is people are going to say "HOW MUCH!? Eh, no"

Come Again?

"This should mean users are able to do more than just work the web on their machines."

So netbooks will become small laptops. This kinda misses the point that in essence a netbook is supposed to be a device for surfing the web, managing e-mails and not a lot else. Even if they could reasonably match the power of a highish end laptop in such a small form factor, who would want to use such a small keyboard all day?

Things should improve with ARM, but I still have no interest in a netbook that pretends to be a laptop. To me, my netbook is a utility, as opposed to a computer. OK so I've chucked a text editor on there for if I'm feeling code happy, but other than that, it's browse the net, check e-mails, and that's it.

It does what I want, and it's going to take something really good to get me to replace it. Making it more like a tiny laptop doesn't qualify in my books.

If Linux fix three things...

...my next upgrade won't be with MS.

1) X Server - proper configuration for multiple-displays (it's missing a few vital settings)

2) Printer support - probably easier to buy a new printer really

3) TV - just need to sort out the listings

Hmm...make that one thing then, number 1. XP does everything I need, Vista is an abortion (all the worst bits of KDE in a lard bucket), Server 2008 is an unstable pile of crap; so yeah. I think my next move will be penguin related. I am not paying £100+ for bloated crap.

Oh, and those vital settings? Just better control over what X determines to be the "main" display. Not much really, but it's annoying when it insists on making the "wrong" display "main" (i.e. the "above" display).

Decisions, decisions...

Thinks: $79.99 for windows, has product activiation, various spy-ware like features, and remains the worlds #1 virus and malware target.

Ubuntu, free or $54.99 for years support. No product activation, can do as I please with it, and marginal target for malware.

I'll take the penguin thanks. Does all that most folk need: web, email, photos, music (though the lack of iTunes is a pain), CD/DVD play & write, file share, etc...

Dazed and confused

You can't compare a WAU price that's based on a user buying a *new* PC with a *new* Windows7 OEM license to the upgrade price that will be paid by users who have *old* PCs with *old* OEM licences of XP or Vista. Your comparisons simply don't make any sense.

WAU:

User buys new PC

User buys new OEM Windows7 licence

User spends some more money to upgrade to a higher tier of the OS

User still has their old PC and OS.

Retail upgrade:

User sticks with old PC

User bought an OEM XP or Vista licence a few years ago and it's still attached to the old machine.

User now spends a bit more than the WAU price to upgrade to Windows7.

You just can't compare WAU and retail upgrade prices, they affect 2 completely different sectors.

As for Apple, they're winning at the high-end, and are just becoming stronger in the >$1k segment each year. Cutting price is not going to affect that section of the market. And, obviously, people tempted to switch to Apple are looking at buying a whole new (and expensive) machine, a comparison of Family Packs is irrelevant.

Where MS fails badly is in the 'limited time offer' department. Their pre-order offers for Windows7 sold out in the EU in about 10 minutes and that sort of trick just makes customers angry. The Family Pack Offer needs to be permanent. Playing marketing games with your pricing just annoys consumers and leads them to look elsewhere.

Who buys windows?

Seriously, who buys it? Targetting it at consumers wih any sort of discount matrix seems utterly pointless.

Windows comws with new PCs, if MS is having trouble selling its OS then it's because the PC market has slowed down markedly in the last couple of years. Last year's machine is no longer useless. That machine from 5 years ago can still browse the web and do the documents fine.

Win Flavours

Well they can discount all they want I'm not moving away from XP & 2003.

If I have to, Ubuntu/OSX are my friends on the desktop (as the sales department want they Apple MacAir ... Sales persons ... showoff) the servers are Solaris, Alpha/Tru64 & a tiny bit of Win 2003 that can survive for years, Debian could replace Solaris if Oracle plays silly games, and Tru64 is dead anyway so there is no room for M$ spank me later scheme.

Companies should really open their options.

M$ should think that people don't want a dumbed down version because they are using it at "Home".

Linux does not do that & Apple does not either.

Linux & Win7

As a new linux user, I would say that in the netbook market, Microsoft has its work cut out, Ive found Linux to be easy to install and tweek the way I want it and performance to be excellent. Why would I upgrade, there is no real reason why I should and many why I shouldn't (malware).

GNU/Linux is Bigger Than MacOS

TFA is very informative but puts illegal copies and MacOS ahead of GNU/Linux as competition. GNU/Linux has more than double the share of PCs than MacOS. GNU/Linux does not have to improve to grow market share on the low-priced PCs. Emerging markets and newcomers to the PC market are very price-sensitive and GNU/Linux is the clear winner on prices. Do not forget ARM where M$ is not a player.

In Russia and a few OEMs, consumers are offered a clear price for GNU/Linux and can choose it. For cost-concious businesses and schools moving to thin clients. GNU/Linux is already a good choice. That is 10% of PCs, about 2% of production. GNU/Linux is attacking on several fronts.

The big takeaway from TFA is that consumers will not be able to understand the pricing scheme. People like simple choices. This is not simple. GNU/Linux is simple. It is the same price whether you run a mainframe or a netbook, $0.

Why upgrade anyway?

Windows 7? Windows 8? I'm just finishing up installing (my free MSDN copy of ) Vista on my new, shipped-OS-less pc. For the last 6 years I've been running XP Pro. The only reason I've changed OS is because of the new machine and the free OS. Otherwise it would have been XP again. I upgrade OS only when necessary, not just for the fun of it, so I won't be upgrading to 7 or 8 or any other until it is again necessary. See you in 6 years Microsoft!

Windows 7 flaw

Perhaps Microsoft is seeing the writing on the wall. This past week I have handed out more copies of Linux (Mepis 8) than ever before. More and more people are willing to at least look at Linux, a major change. Most of these people are those who have relatively recently purchased a new computer which invariably came with vista pre-installed. There is also a simmering discontent with the additional costs to getting a really usable system, including word processing and spreadsheet programmes. There is additionally discontent with the need for anti-virus and anti-malware programmes with windows with the overheads that they require.

As an aside, the computer I use at work has recently black screened with the message that "Windows Genuine Advantage" has detected that it has an unregistered copy of XP. As this is a small company and they buy their computers with the OS already installed, are Microsoft accusing the supplier of copyright infringement? If that is so then IBM, the producer of the computer might be interested. (The computer in question is a genuine IBM pre Lenovo which gives an indication of its age). They do not seem to like being accused of copyright infringement ala SCO.

The Drug Peddler's Model...

... the first fix is cheap, then, once they're hooked, the price goes up...

But Snow Leopard is only $29

That makes it wayyyy cheaper than Windows 7 to upgrade... However, I am an Apple user so the cost of Windows is irrelevant to me as I am not going to upgrade to it, Snow Leopard on the other hand, I will. I imagine the people using Windows machines, would not be affected by OS X prices either.... if they are going to buy a new machine and decide on an iMac or Macbook, the cost of upgrading to Snow Leopard is not going to be a factor on the actual cost of the machine. If they want to buy a new Windows machine, I can't see most people buying a Vista one and than paying to upgrade to Windows 7, they will just stick with Vista or they will wait for Windows 7 to be pre-installed and buy then or use an upgrade voucher provided it is free. So the competition as far as income from upgrades, is really just Microsoft from all of those existing Vista and XP users, most of whom I would guess won't pay for an upgrade. So apart from on new machines, I think Windows 7 sales wise will be another Vista.

Can't compare Apples with pears

When was the last time someone said "ooh, it's cheaper to upgrade Windows than Mac OS, so I'd better stop using my Mac OS and just buy Windows from now on"? And vice versa. If someone likes their brand of OS they stick to it. And if they did want to swap "sides" they'd probably buy a new PC or Mac with the OS preinstalled.

I don't think there is any merit in comparing Windows/Mac OS prices. People don't pick their OS based on price they do so based on either what they are already familiar with, what their friends & family have told them, or on their own list of requirements - software availability, stability, virus protection, the cool factor, etc.

Personally I think Microsoft should give all Vista owners a free upgrade to 7 with a written apology from Ballmer. "Sorry we sold you this c*$p, I'm sure you'll find 7 will make up for it."

Upgrade ?

The thing that troubles me about all of this is the word 'upgrade'. Certainly in the UK, think of the usual consumer user : buy a laptop, wait two years for windows to be well and truly f&^%$%^%$%!!!d , hand it down, buy another.

People ted to stick with what they have, having spent £500 plus in the first case, why another £50-150 just to make it work ? I dont see it happening.

AS for Linux; well, Linux is far superior to Windows, and probably to W7 as well. Currently, the restrictions in W7 suggests that W7 will be a bag of spanners, where as Linux is restriction free. The only problem Linux [Mandriva, Ubuntu, Suse et al] have is that the hardware people don't like to put Linux on too often so that MS don't stop them putting n the cash cow top price machines. The thinking being Linux is ok for the cheap stuff, MS for the pricey stuff. Flawed logic in my opinion, but, none the less, probably not far away from the truth.

For me, I still won't be buying a W7 machine, I will stick with what I have, Mandriva, and all will be fine.

p.

Micrsofts Inevitable Decline

With this apparent lack of leadership and vision this seems to be the start of Microsoft's decline.

Recommended

I'm not sure that pricing, per se, is really an issue. You know that MS is going to make an obscene profit whatever its 'strategy' - software costs virtually nothing to produce, once the R&D is paid for, and that is how they got rich in the first place. I'd like to see two things:

1) Transparency - we should be allowed to know what it really costs to make and what installers like Dell and HP pay. They're the ones 'recommending' it, after all.

2) Responsibility of those 'recommending' it, when it turns out to be a turkey, like Vista. If MS is in court over the 'Vista compatible' stickers, howcome the people who put the stickers on aren't complicit?

What else do people spend their money on over a 5 years?

It does make me laugh to hear folks bitch and moan about the cost of the latest MS OS.

On average I've used each OS around 5 years+. For the price thats not that much each year for so much usage and benefit.

But folks think thats way too much.

However, in that time chances are they wil have -

Changed their phone three times.

Laptop/PC twice or more.

TV twice.

Car once.

Games console etc. etc.

And not batted an eyelid.

Apple price? Who cares?

So what is Snow Leopard is only $29, can I upgrade my Windows XP to that? *NO!* It would be against the licensing terms.

Could I move to Linux?...perhaps. But then I need to buy a new printer (costing more than a Windows 7 Upgrade), couldn't run a decent multi-screen system (X has some very annoying limitations, e.g. on a vertical stacked 2 screen system, try making the lower screen "main". You can't. How shit is that?), I lose TV (no EPGs etc), I lose corporate VPN and so on. (See note below)

So as much I may not like it, I will either have to remain on XP or upgrade to Windows 7.

There simply is no viable alternative (yet).

Note to the Linux fanbois: I know about MythTV, I know about OpenSwan etc. These simply do not work for me.

Trench warfare

"Chief executive Steve Ballmer this week described a WWI trench war scenario with Apple."

That seems a rather distasteful comparison.

RE: Jason 7 @ 9.59

What you are stating people change in 5 years (mobile, laptop, car etc) cannot be compared with what MS are releasing.

Lets see why.

Mobile - New mobile offers features that previous mobile did not have - par example, my old mobile was no effective on the web, so I changed it for one that was.

Laptop - Offers features not on previous laptop - I store a lot of image and play some AAA games. My previous laptop wouldnt run them, but my new laptop has lots of storage and can run all the apps/games I want.

Car - Well my old car was a rust bucket and needed some more work, so cheaper for me to buy a new one.

My point is that MS software be it Win 7/8 whatever, at present does NOTHING different than Win XP.

Fancy windows...ooh nice...right the value has been earned and lost.

Quicker bootime - inconsequential and also hardware dependant.

Will run on existing hardware - but not quite as good as the current occupant (win xp)

Quick clicks for stupid people - Win XP was dumbed down NT/2000, imo doesnt need dumbing down anymore.

So there you have it, the key reasons to upgrade dont give me any value whatsoever and does nothing over and above what my current incarnation does.

I too, fail to know these people who buy the upgrades. With many tech colleagues and quite a range of family, I know that MS wont be earning upgrade $$ from my corner of the world.

Why dont they go down a license fee format. Pay an annual cost ($20 a year say) and you get all versions, patches, upgrades etc.

You want more packages, nps, just pay an extra $5 a year for office.

At least you'll obtain a source of income rather than HOPING people will by teh product. - because at present, the only product people are buying IS the computer.

@Paul Crawford

Spot on.

This review also misses the fact that Windows maybe $50 cheaper, but users have to spent $50 a year in virus protection - linux and mac's - they don't.

@SimonC and James Dunmore

@SimioC. My point wasnt about features. It was about people moning about maybe having to spend anything from £60 to £200 on an OS every 5 years knowing that the usage they get from it will be quite high. Yet they dont think twice about spending possible thousands on something they may only use a fraction in comparison on a far more regualr basis.

@James Dunmore - $50 a year on AV? You must have been in a coma for the past 10 years. Perfectly competant free AV software has been around a long time. But then you are trolling of course and trolls are ancient. No one has to pay for virus protection.