[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Chris Gohlke

Might need to reconsider my $49 preorders as this appears to be a better deal if you need three licenses.

Only by $15 though - I think it's worth that to have three physical copies of the OS, and three unique licenses. There's also the potential for hassles with one DVD and one license. Just my 2 cents.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Chris Gohlke

Might need to reconsider my $49 preorders as this appears to be a better deal if you need three licenses.

Only by $15 though - I think it's worth that to have three physical copies of the OS, and three unique licenses. There's also the potential for hassles with one DVD and one license. Just my 2 cents.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Outlaw94

I also think Ed Botts needs to check himself. Look at the history of Microsoft new OS releases...

Oh, that comment that I quoted wasn't from Ed Bott - it was a comment from someone else responding to his post.

Originally Posted by Outlaw94

I think Ed Botts is trying to copmpare this to Apple and you can't compare it to the new apple update coming down the line because if you seriously look at it, it is apples versus oranges (no pun intended).

Agreed. Apple also charges big for their computers, so it's not like you're "saving" anything by buying a Mac and getting a OS update for $29. You've more than paid the price difference between the two operating systems when you purchase a Mac. On the other hand, I can go pick up a netbook for $299, the Windows 7 upgrade for $49, and boom, I'm rocking a Windows 7 netbook for under $350. Tough to beat that!

[Jason Dunn]

Three things have struck me about the comments over on Ed Bott's post, and here:

1) When did the value of an operating system, the core of every computing experience, become so de-valued in the minds of users? Sure, Linux is free, but you get what you pay for. The OS is at the heart of everything you do on a computer, yet people are balking at having to pay $49 (or less in the family pack) to get a whole new OS that Microsoft spend three years and millions (billions?) making. Is it a perceived value thing, where people don't see the value in Windows 7 and don't think it's worth $49? I can see more cause for pause when we're talking about a $149 upgrade, but $49...??

2) If you're an uber-geek with six or more computers, roll out the Windows 7 upgrade in stages. Buy one family pack, upgrade your three most-used computers - and computers most capable of running Windows 7 well - then wait a few months and buy another family pack if you want to extend the Windows 7 experience to the other computers.

3) Vista is a perfectly good operating system and if you're running it, you certainly don't have to upgrade to Windows 7.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I was thinking of 1-2 desktops, 1-2 notebooks, and maybe 1-2 netbooks. Maybe 5 is a bit high, but 3 should be common.

[Gordo]

As I posted earlier, I am one of those individuals who have many computers. In the past when MS released a new OS my older hardware generally didn't work, and I just upgraded as new computers were purchased. This might actually be the first time MS has created an OS that is lighter than the previous version, and for the first time I might consider loading it on old hardware.

I now have to ask myself, how many times have I purchased an OS from MS and the retired computer is long gone. When I purchase a new computer that comes with a pre-installed version of MS OS, I am paying full price.

So I need to ask myself what is the value of the upgrade to me. Is $49 too much, and what new functionality am I getting for that money.

I just needed to vent a little....

[ptyork]

Originally Posted by Lee Yuan Sheng

I was thinking of 1-2 desktops, 1-2 notebooks, and maybe 1-2 netbooks. Maybe 5 is a bit high, but 3 should be common.

Seriously, average for affluent, nerdy 20-somethings is MAYBE 3 if you include their TiVO. Average for the other 98% is most certainly below 2, especially if you don't count those that are managed by an employer. I teach "average" young to middle-aged adults in an "average" midsized city and most of them use the lab computers because they don't have a computer or their roommate's computer is on the fritz or their husband's boss won't let him install the new version of Office on his work laptop. I'm willing to bet Microsoft will be covering over 99% of households with a three-license pack.

Jason, the operating system has become so devalued because A) the cost of the average consumer's computer itself has dropped from $2000 to $400 since Windows XP was released ("surely the OS can't be worth more than 10% of my entire computer purchase!?!"), B) software, as with digital media, is something that the new generation believes should be free ("if I can copy it, I sure ain't gonna pay for it"), and C) most people don't really "use" their OS beyond the basics of executing one program at a time ("what difference does this new OS really make to me?").

[Felix Torres]

Originally Posted by ptyork

Jason, the operating system has become so devalued because A) the cost of the average consumer's computer itself has dropped from $2000 to $400 since Windows XP was released ("surely the OS can't be worth more than 10% of my entire computer purchase!?!"), B) software, as with digital media, is something that the new generation believes should be free ("if I can copy it, I sure ain't gonna pay for it"), and C) most people don't really "use" their OS beyond the basics of executing one program at a time ("what difference does this new OS really make to me?").

All very good and valid points.
Perhaps somebody needs to remind people that:
A- A PC without an OS is a boat anchor and maybe point out that free Linuxes are no substitute (at the consumer level) for Windows. (Something early netbook vendors discovered the hard way.)
B- Copying it and activating it are 2 different things
C- Most people need to plug-in accessories, which need drivers, and install software, which won't run without the right OS (see A, above)

It really comes down to the plain fact that too many people, encouraged by a certain (and very foolish) section of the IT community (*cough*Stallmanites*cough*) have the mistaken notion that intellectual products are trivial to produce and have no inherent value. Those that never create original content of any value thus insist that such content has no value; witness the desire by europeans to abolish patents altogether.
(But that is drifting Off-topic)

Anyway, historically, MS OSes and Environments started out at $99 with a $50 upgrade price. (MS DOS 1-5 and Windows 1-3).
This went up to $109 and higher with the integration of both into Win95 and the subsequent lawsuits (to recoup litigation costs) and higher with the NT-based OSes Win2000-Vista, (to recoup the kickbacks to competitors and hostile regimes).

Win 7 is the not the first MS OS to run well on existing and (slightly) older hardware (that was XP) but it is likely to be the first where upgrades will constitute a *major* portion of the installed base. Expect to see record-breaking Win7 adoption rates as Win7 adoption is *not* going to be driven by new hardware purchases but upgrades. (Thank Apple's product libel and PC OEMs for that.)

Oh, and for those bringing up the mythical $29 Snow Leopard upgrade price: read the fine print. The vast majority of the OS X installed base will pay either $129 to upgrade, not $29, or not be able to upgrade at all.
Gotta love reality distortion zones!

Toodles!

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Felix Torres

Oh, and for those bringing up the mythical $29 Snow Leopard upgrade price: read the fine print. The vast majority of the OS X installed base will pay either $129 to upgrade, not $29, or not be able to upgrade at all.

I read Ed Bott saying the same thing, and what I read didn't make much sense - his point was that only Mac users who are using an Intel-based Mac can upgrade for $29...but Macs have been Intel-based for, what, three years now? Stands to reason that most people who care about staying current with OS X have probably gone Intel by now...no?