Microsoft Offers Discount on Multiple Copies of Vista for Families

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jan07/01-17ConsumerOptionsPR.mspx' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jan07/01-17ConsumerOptionsPR.mspx</a><br /><br /></div><i>"To make it easier for households with multiple PCs to make the move to Windows Vista, Microsoft is launching a limited-time offer for customers who buy retail copies of Windows Vista Ultimate. From Jan. 30 through June 30, the Windows Vista Family Discount will allow North American customers to license two additional copies of Windows Vista Home Premium for use on other PCs in the home at the reduced price of $49.99 each. Before completing the order online, customers will need to enter one valid full or upgrade Windows Vista Ultimate key from their retail boxed product. After eligibility is verified online, the customer can purchase licenses to install Windows Vista Home Premium on one or two additional Windows-based computers. The Windows Vista Family Discount is available only in the U.S. and Canada."</i><br /><br />This has been a personal quest of mine for a couple of years: I've always found it frustrating, and downright unacceptable, that Microsoft hasn't offered any sort of discount for multiple-computer households. Back in the early Windows XP days I was extolling the virtues of Windows XP to a friend who had four kids and five computers total in his house. Since XP was the first version of Windows to have activation, when I explained that he'd have to purchase five copies of the XP Home Upgrade ($149 CAN each), he suddenly wasn't very keen on dropping $600 to upgrade all his computers. Apple has their 5-license family pack for $199, and the most Microsoft offered was a 10% discount if you ordered digital keys online.<br /><br />Apparently Microsoft listened to people like me who told them over and over this was a problem, because they've come up with a solution: if you purchase a retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate (the upgrade is $259 USD) you'll be able to purchase two electronics keys for Vista Home Premium for $49 USD each instead of the normal $159 USD price tag. That's a savings of $210 USD, which is excellent. The total cost of that setup would be $357 USD, which is $120 USD less than the $477 USD that three upgrades of Home Premium would cost. So it's a much better deal than Microsoft's original pricing, though it depends if you really want Vista Ultimate.<br /><br />It's not perfect, but this is a good first step for Microsoft and I applaud them for it (and listening to people like us). It's obviously not as impressive as Apple's $199 family pack with five licenses, but given that Apple releases a new OS almost yearly, over the lifespan of Vista (assuming it's three to four years) I think Microsoft's new solution ends up being less expensive in the long run.

[Vincent Ferrari]

You're right, and it is more expensive for Apple, but really I have four points here...

1. Microsoft should've done this years ago. It actually got to a point where a retail copy of XP was $300 and a new computer was the same with XP installed. That's just silly.

2. At $49 a piece, that's still expensive. Not in the amortized sense, but definitely in the initial outlay sense. You and I both know it's a lot easier to stomach $200 every 2 years (OS x's current cycle; rumored to be expanded to 3-5 years once Leopard comes out) than a single outlay of $500. I think computer companies forget that people may be able to afford this sort of stuff just fine if they aren't laying it all out at once.

3. There's only one version of OSX and with it you get all the functionality (we're talking for consumers, obviously, not OSX server) at the same price.

4. Why is it only available in the US and Canada? It's the #1 operating system in the world! I have a lot of friends in England who are gonna be pretty pissed about that.

Not to piss on it though. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Let's hope they take it further now.

[egads]

That's still too much. I'd upgrade in a second if I could get three copies at $50 each. If I have to pay over $150 for each upgrade I will NEVER upgrade, I'll just get Vista with my next computer...

MS has a great deal on the student/teacher edition of Office (can install on three machines). I wish they had a simular deal for Vista Home.

[Jason Dunn]

That's still too much. I'd upgrade in a second if I could get three copies at $50 each.

$50 for a new operating system? Wishful thinking my friend, remember this is how Microsoft makes the bulk of their money. ;-)

If I have to pay over $150 for each upgrade I will NEVER upgrade, I'll just get Vista with my next computer...

Yeah, that's how most people upgrade to a new OS - which sucks, because it means they're running an older OS more prone to virus/spyware attacks, and those are the computers being used as bots to spam the rest of us! If they're all XP SP2, then it's not such a big deal, but if some clueless person (not you of course) is running Windows 98 because they don't want to upgrade to a new OS, but their computer is still running ok...that's a problem in my book. Computers like that are a threat to the Internet and the rest of us unless the person using it has the skill to keep it safe - and that's becoming harder and harder if it's not a supported OS any longer.

[Vincent Ferrari]

You're right about that. It's a shame too because an OS that's been beaten to hell and improved through time-tested ass-kicking is Win 2k (my fave version of Windows ever). Truth is, it'll be phased out soon, and along with it all the stuff MS has learned because they retooled it for XP and rebuilt it in Vista...

Shame...

And people who don't upgrade and don't do critical updates should be banned from the internet. They're a danger to all of us akin to driving drunk on the information superhighway (I know... It's a cheesy pun but you get the point).

[marlof]

And people who don't upgrade and don't do critical updates should be banned from the internet.

Hum ho. So because there are pirates at sea, you should wear a bullit proof vest, or be forced to stop going out, unless you buy an armored vessel every time? If that's true it's a weird world out there. My mom runs Win98. She has no intention of upgrading, since Win98 is the last OS her lowly computer can actually run without coming to a crawl. She does run a firewall and anti virus (free from the ISP), and has all updates on (as long as they're available). So you guys think she should be banned from the internet, as long as doesn't get new hardware and software, even when her hardware still works as good as when I bought it, since her OS is no longer supported and Win98 is vulnerable? I know that if that would become a rule, I'd tell her to get a Mac.

[bcre8v2]

Safety and security while on the net (web/e-mail/wireless/etc.) should be second nature - regardless of the OS that you're running. Whether it's in the form of AV, a firewall, constant patches, or simple rogue website avoidance.
Only a few years ago, folks were saying "get a Mac - they never get viruses or hacked...." WRONG. Same thing for Linux - has anyone seen the latest round of 158 MB of updates for some of the distros?

Back to the original topic and how it relates to the above statement... Is the pricing model favorable?: IMHO - No, the pricing model is marketed to you as being favorable.
I would argue that MS needs to make a profit and recoup it's investment in Vista, but at the same time it should take responsibility for some of the mess that it has created. I agree that Vista should be made available in multiple flavors (Businesses have different needs than general consumers or even students).

One of the fundamental issues that MS should be trying to tackle is the reduction of support costs. By positioning Vista as a more cost-effective upgrade (we have all heard that it is safer, secure, etc.), more folks will acquire it and be less likely to become "bots", spammed, and compromised. They will stop blaming MS for some of their woes, gain more confidence, and hopefully mature with their abilities. Hopefully, support costs (anywhere from 5% to 25% of a product's MSRP) will drop.

The other reasoning behind dropping the MRSP is to help reduce the overall cost of a migration. 50% of my current apps won't work (even in compatibility mode). After running the upgrade advisor, I calculated that I'd need to spend another $750 in software upgrade costs - OUCH. Too much upfront capital outlay for me.

Disclosure and personal opinion:
I am running Vista Ultimate (sans Aero) in a VM for eval purposes and personally, will not be migrating my other systems until I get my next computer with a manufactures' discount and other software vendor enticements.

-Steve

[Vincent Ferrari]

Hum ho. So because there are pirates at sea, you should wear a bullit proof vest, or be forced to stop going out, unless you buy an armored vessel every time? If that's true it's a weird world out there.

Difference is that in your example, you're not a danger to others. If you run an antiquated and unpatchable OS, you are a danger to others. You're a magnet for spambots, viruses, spyware, trojans, and various security vulnerabilities that you can't do anything about.

My mom runs Win98. She has no intention of upgrading, since Win98 is the last OS her lowly computer can actually run without coming to a crawl. She does run a firewall and anti virus (free from the ISP), and has all updates on (as long as they're available).

That's actually good news, come to think of it, because as we all know antivirus software and software firewalls are 100% effective. :roll: We're not talking about band-aiding the problem, we're talking about actually fixing the problems that exist.

So you guys think she should be banned from the internet, as long as doesn't get new hardware and software, even when her hardware still works as good as when I bought it, since her OS is no longer supported and Win98 is vulnerable? I know that if that would become a rule, I'd tell her to get a Mac.

If her needs are basic enough that Windows 98 satisfies them, put Ubuntu on her machine. It'll fly compared to Win 98, be much more stable, much more secure, and there's even a certain degree of security that just comes along with being on a less popular OS. It's also easy to use, easy to install, and comes with just about everything you could ever need.

This really has nothing to do with hardware at all.

Only a few years ago, folks were saying "get a Mac - they never get viruses or hacked...." WRONG.

Those folks were somewhat wrong as every OS is hackable (some less than others). That being said, care to enlighten us about all the Mac OS viruses out there? As far as I know there are nothing but proof of concept viruses and none in the wild, not to mention that in February 2006 the first Mac OSX virus was discovered (actually it was manufactured in a lab) and the vulnerability it exploited to propagate and run was patched immediately rendering it vaporware.

Please educate me.

[marlof]

Difference is that in your example, you're not a danger to others. If you run an antiquated and unpatchable OS, you are a danger to others. You're a magnet for spambots, viruses, spyware, trojans, and various security vulnerabilities that you can't do anything about.

But... it's not something you *do*. It's something *others do*, exploiting your vulnerability. It's still upgrade, or die.

If her needs are basic enough that Windows 98 satisfies them, put Ubuntu on her machine.

That's an upgrade too. She doesn't want a new OS. She wants her current hardware and software. That's what she's used to, and what she (barely) manages to deal with at her old(ish) age of 73. Every change would involve a tremendous learning curve. Her setup works. It is protected as much as possible. I know that is no guarantee. But happily she's on dialup, and only online once a week for 15 minutes or so to check her email and view a family blog, so she's an unlikely target. :)

I agree with you, Vincent, that upgrading would be the most sensible thing to do in most cases. I just wanted to point out the weirdness in this: you're forced to change, since others behave badly. That's not unique though, in my country you can get a ticket for not locking your own car, and with that "solliciting" criminals to break in.

[Vincent Ferrari]

But happily she's on dialup, and only online once a week for 15 minutes or so to check her email and view a family blog, so she's an unlikely target. :)

Thank God! :lol:

I've just seen so many bad stories of people just leaving unprotected old machines out there on brooadband and it just makes me nauseous because they don't even realize how much that affects other people.

Dialup is a different animal, though.

BTW: My grandfather is 80+ and uses Win XP now (his machine came with ME and I refused to let him muddle by with it anymore). Unfortunately it is the way it is. You need the latest OS to be the most secure (or at least the second-to-latest).

Know what's funny though? MS makes you upgrade to be more secure, but they also offer a paid antivirus and antispyware solution (OneCare). How frigging odd is that? You would think a company that builds such blazing neon targets could throw users a bone and give them the damn protection in the first place! :roll:

[bcre8v2]

Vincent, you're right - there are a limited number of Mac viruses. I was actually implying overall security... and Mac's are not immune to this any longer. As with any OS, it becomes a matter of time - and a race against time for the Manufacturers. MS is hoping that Vista provides this capability, especially as a cost-reducing OS for companies.

I think we are all on board with the "protect yourself" campaign. Last thing I want or need is to have my system(s) compromised and unavailable. But, I'm not about to crawl into a hole and forgo technology advances (although it's tempting at times :roll: ).

For those of us who understand the ramifications and have experienced the downsides of minimalistic security, it does come down to wearing a seltbelt and helmet.

-Steve

[Jason Dunn]

But happily she's on dialup, and only online once a week for 15 minutes or so to check her email and view a family blog, so she's an unlikely target.

Well that puts a very different perspective on things Marlof - it's very, very different when you're on a high-speed, always on connection and can get hacked 20 different ways. If her computer is behind a hardware firewall and has anti-virus + anti-spyware, and is only connecting to the 'Net now and then, the target is much, much smaller...

[marlof]

I know, and previous statements about non-upgraders being banned seemed to not include that category. I personally still know a lot of people who use dialup. Simply, because they do want to have an email account, and some web browsing experience, but broadband is overkill for their very modest needs. We don't all live in a state of art environment. :)