5 ms·

Price is one issue, but what they really needed to reduce is the number of variations, to end the confusion. I suppose any reduction is good, but $10 isn't muc

Price is one issue, but what they really needed to reduce is the number of variations, to end the confusion. I suppose any reduction is good, but $10 isn't much for something purchased every few years (or simply bundled on an expensive new machine), especially when it comes from a company that could easily afford to give the OS away for free.

Retric 17y ago
Inflation adjusted this a ~15% price drop from the initial cost of Vista. But, the real shocker is the preorder price of Windows 7 Home Premium ($49.99) and Windows 7 Professional ($99.99).
- roc 17y ago
  ... the time-and-quantity-limited pre-order price; more of a marketing maneuver than a price cut. Frankly the boxed OS prices for Windows are moot. Individuals get the new OS license with the new computer and businesses go through resellers. 7 isn't any 'cheaper' than Vista for any significant number of Microsoft's customers.
  - Retric 17y ago
    I completely agree that for most people this is a non issue, however this is HN where building your one system or upgrading the OS is a real possibility. And the price drop was large enough that I am going to preorder Windows 7. So I felt it was worth highlighting.
    - roc 17y ago
      Sure sure. If you're 'in the market' it's good to know. Honest question though: How many people do you know who still build desktops? It seems everyone I know has gone laptop + external monitors in the past few years. (with hand-built 'server' machines all running linux)
      - pbz 17y ago
        If you're in the Windows world and use VS then a laptop won't do... unless you're a masochists
      - msc 17y ago
        If I have time, I'll finish two desktops by the end of the week, upgrading mine and building another for a relative with spare parts. I also know quite a bit of gamers that build their own desktops too.
      - misuba 17y ago
        There are a lot more PC gamers than it might seem. They don't do laptops.
chollida1 17y ago
> especially when it comes from a company that could easily afford to give the OS away for free. I don't know if this is true. Microsoft would have a very hard time keeping their revenue and profit where they are, much less growing them, which is what the street wants to see, if they gave away their OS. If they suddenly lost their OS revenue the stock would take a dramatic hit, I doubt they could afford to do this. Given that they can't afford the hit on their stock price that loosing their OS revenue would bring, can you show how they can afford this?
- makecheck 17y ago
  Microsoft's revenue has increased consistently for its entire lifetime, until recently (Q1'09). [1] In other words, for 23 years, their revenue has gone up every quarter, and even though it "dropped" in Q1 it was still 13.65 billion dollars for a single quarter. About $3.4B of that is from their client division that sells Windows. Windows isn't the only revenue that counts (e.g. people may not upgrade other software either, if they haven't upgraded Windows). And revenue isn't the only effect on long-term viability. They are no doubt spending a lot to maintain Windows right now. If they gave a free upgrade to Windows 7, they could pretend Vista doesn't exist and eliminate most of its support costs; simply tell all customers that Vista will not be supported because Windows 7 is free and is compatible. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/23/microsoft-revenue-plunges http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/23/microsoft-rev...
  - chollida1 17y ago
    > If they gave a free upgrade to Windows 7, they could pretend Vista doesn't exist and eliminate most of its support costs; simply tell all customers that Vista will not be supported because Windows 7 is free and is compatible. That sounds nice in theory. In practice there are many companies that change OS's very slowly as it cost alot of money and time to test internal apps and systems on each new OS. I'd bet that even if Windows 7 was free there would be a substantial client base that would still stick with Vista, XP and 2000 because they don't want to have to upgrade thousands of computers.

Retric 17y ago

Inflation adjusted this a ~15% price drop from the initial cost of Vista. But, the real shocker is the preorder price of Windows 7 Home Premium ($49.99) and Windows 7 Professional ($99.99).

roc 17y ago
... the time-and-quantity-limited pre-order price; more of a marketing maneuver than a price cut. Frankly the boxed OS prices for Windows are moot. Individuals get the new OS license with the new computer and businesses go through resellers. 7 isn't any 'cheaper' than Vista for any significant number of Microsoft's customers.
- Retric 17y ago
  I completely agree that for most people this is a non issue, however this is HN where building your one system or upgrading the OS is a real possibility. And the price drop was large enough that I am going to preorder Windows 7. So I felt it was worth highlighting.
  - roc 17y ago
    Sure sure. If you're 'in the market' it's good to know. Honest question though: How many people do you know who still build desktops? It seems everyone I know has gone laptop + external monitors in the past few years. (with hand-built 'server' machines all running linux)
    - pbz 17y ago
      If you're in the Windows world and use VS then a laptop won't do... unless you're a masochists
    - msc 17y ago
      If I have time, I'll finish two desktops by the end of the week, upgrading mine and building another for a relative with spare parts. I also know quite a bit of gamers that build their own desktops too.
    - misuba 17y ago
      There are a lot more PC gamers than it might seem. They don't do laptops.

chollida1 17y ago

> especially when it comes from a company that could easily afford to give the OS away for free. I don't know if this is true. Microsoft would have a very hard time keeping their revenue and profit where they are, much less growing them, which is what the street wants to see, if they gave away their OS. If they suddenly lost their OS revenue the stock would take a dramatic hit, I doubt they could afford to do this. Given that they can't afford the hit on their stock price that loosing their OS revenue would bring, can you show how they can afford this?

makecheck 17y ago
Microsoft's revenue has increased consistently for its entire lifetime, until recently (Q1'09). [1] In other words, for 23 years, their revenue has gone up every quarter, and even though it "dropped" in Q1 it was still 13.65 billion dollars for a single quarter. About $3.4B of that is from their client division that sells Windows. Windows isn't the only revenue that counts (e.g. people may not upgrade other software either, if they haven't upgraded Windows). And revenue isn't the only effect on long-term viability. They are no doubt spending a lot to maintain Windows right now. If they gave a free upgrade to Windows 7, they could pretend Vista doesn't exist and eliminate most of its support costs; simply tell all customers that Vista will not be supported because Windows 7 is free and is compatible. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/23/microsoft-revenue-plunges http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/23/microsoft-rev...
- chollida1 17y ago
  > If they gave a free upgrade to Windows 7, they could pretend Vista doesn't exist and eliminate most of its support costs; simply tell all customers that Vista will not be supported because Windows 7 is free and is compatible. That sounds nice in theory. In practice there are many companies that change OS's very slowly as it cost alot of money and time to test internal apps and systems on each new OS. I'd bet that even if Windows 7 was free there would be a substantial client base that would still stick with Vista, XP and 2000 because they don't want to have to upgrade thousands of computers.