Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft slashes Windows Vista retail price in surprise move

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

February 29, 2008, 12:08 PM

Microsoft appears to be attempting to increase Windows Vista sales by making the operating system more affordable both in the United States and abroad.

In the US, the changes will only apply to the Premium and Ultimate upgrade versions of the software. Premium will fall from $159 to $129, while the Ultimate version will now be $219, down from $299.

Elsewhere, price cuts will vary widely. Some developed countries will see cuts as small as three percent, while in other areas Vista's cost may be cut nearly in half. In addition, Microsoft is doing away with the upgrade versions of software in some markets.

The company says this move has a lot to do with encouraging the use of genuine software in these countries. By making Vista more affordable, it hopes that the instances of pirated software will decrease.

Microsoft had been testing out lower prices over the past few months, and found that the revenue lost in the price cut was more than recouped by the additional uptake from users who may have not upgraded otherwise.

"While the promotions varied region to region, one constant emerged, an increase in demand among consumers that went beyond tech enthusiasts and build-it-yourself types," marketing chief Brad Brooks said.

He also conceded that the initial pricing for Vista may have been a little ambitious. Most of the price cuts will take effect with the launch of Service Pack 1, expected later this year.

Add a Comment (152 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By yourcat

posted Mar 5, 2008 - 1:09 PM

200,000,000,000 or so, I would guess... seems like plenty to me even for a big corporation like Micro$oft.

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 4:15 PM

When I see *Retail* Vista (x86 or x64) Home Basic for $50 or less, Home Premium/Business for $100 or less, and Ultimate for $150 or less, then maybe I'll consider it.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 3:58 PM

I am telling you...the downfall of Microsoft has begun, seriously. They shot themselves in the foot with Vista.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 9:48 PM

perhaps not.

they are simply forecasting the economics of stagflation and recession, like other companies will be doing.

[the economics of stagflation eventually result in price reductions, except for oil/gas]

i think that m$ is simply taking the lead so that the hardware makers follow suit as well and to unload stockpiles of vista's by the time of the next sp release and sale.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Mar 3, 2008 - 4:55 AM

As usual, the thread is about Windows pricing and we have 100+ non sequitur posts by fanboys and geeks oblivious to business models either bashing or lauding the Windows OS!

The pricing model is simple. It follows a value pricing model. Just like Intel pricing. NO surprises at all.

The ONLY thing that surprises me is that so many ran out and paid for such a high price for it so early! LOL!

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 2:36 PM

Well, more like the latest AMD slashes... lower the price of a not-quite optimum product.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 1:02 PM

I certainly learned my lesson. I won't ever buy a MS OS before SP1, even for testing purposes. I don't care what it brings to the table.

Score: 0

By mesiex

edited Mar 3, 2008 - 12:14 PM

About two years ago I transcribed in this forum this little story of Aesopus:
"A cottager and his wife had a Hen that laid a golden egg every day. They supposed that the Hen must contain a great lump of gold in its inside, and in order to get the gold they killed it. Having done so, they found to their surprise that the Hen differed in no respect from their other hens. The foolish pair, thus hoping to become rich all at once, deprived themselves of the gain of which they were assured day by day".
I was talking then about the latest trends of Microsoft, to say that maybe they would kill "the hen of the golden eggs". It seems I was not too wrong at all. Now prices must go down because people has become more conservative towards their old machines or even tries other less aggresive alternatives whenever possible, in special those people who must use big or small networks. I.e. some days ago I've read in this forum the decision of the french Gendarmerie Nationale. Many other public and private corporations are doing the same all over the world just now.

Score: 0

By stinger

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 10:48 PM

I am never one to compliment anything MS does, but I think the biggest thing is MS did such a good job on XP that there just isn't a reason to switch. Given it took 2 service packs and a boat load of hot fixes, but the fact remains its a good OS. There is nothing short of purchasing the right software that Vista can do that XP can't.

I also feel people just aren't excepting the MS mentality any more. The old force it down your throat method. You can't buy a store bought PC that has XP on it anymore unless you want to pay extra and that still may not be an option.

Then of course theres the hardware argument. Many have just finished replacing there old Win9x boxes with Windows XP machines or have just flat upgraded to Windows XP. Why spend more money on hardware just so you can once again have a computer that doesn't run anything do to all the compatibility issues with Vista.

MS will at this point will do as it always does. Lower the price, then they'll stop selling XP, then they'll stop supporting XP. Of course by that time. MS will have another OS that promises to be better that the one previous and they'll try to shove that down your throat as well. God for bid they actually listen to the customer and give them what they want. That would make to much sense.

Score: 0

By stinger

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 10:46 PM

my bad, double post

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 12:49 PM

well, won't do too much good if the hardware needed to run vista doesn't follow....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 4, 2008 - 12:33 PM

You can build an excellent system for ~$800 now.

Hardware prices continue to drop as newer hardware gets released.

Anyone selling systems with Vista on it with less than those specs shouldn't be doing so. They should know better, as should the person buying the unit.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 7:14 PM

You're an idiot. RAM prices are a 1/4 of what they were 12 months ago, or less. Hardware prices on PCs have been dropping much, much, MUCH faster than software - always have been.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 1:45 PM

they drop whenever they become outdated.....

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 2:03 PM

Now that is a very uninformed stupid comment. If that is the case then why is DDR-2700 3X more expensive then the most popular DDR2 memory. The DDR is outdated with your theory should be very cheap. I can buy a gig if DDR2 for what a 256 meg stick of DDR costs.

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 4:15 PM

I nominate this as most retarded comment of March.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 1:45 PM

well, if you already have vista then your comments are reflective of yourself because you should have waited for the sp's to come out.

if you haven't bought vista yet, then go to the store and buy yourself a copy and see how much money you will save because it is likely your pc is not vista ready.

further, i think that using the word retarded insults the unfotunate souls that struggle each day against the bigotry and stupidity like yours.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 4:42 PM

actually, anyone considering storming the store to get their copy of vista because it is cheaper likely don't know that it won't run on windows xp machines, unless they are upgraded.

even then there are some motherboards designed for windows xp that cannot run vista no matter how upgraded they may be.

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 4:13 PM

DatabaseBen, you're leaving your statement *wide* open to flaming. Truth is, most techies will avoid Vista for the simple fact that it is less stable, and they really don't need an OS that repeatedly nags at them, asking them, "are you REALLY SURE you want to do this?".

Vista is good eye candy, and has a lot of multimedia-PC friendly features. It WILL end up being the de-facto Windows OS, but only once they start cutting down on XP development, and help kill some of the overhead that is associated with running Aero Glass.

Currently, I am unaware of any motherboards released in the last 6 months that were not Vista-capable. Can you name one to help support your criticism?

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 9:39 PM

vista was released 14 months ago.

therefore 6 month old motherboards are compatiable and 6 month old pc's are likely running vista (sp-0).

further most pc's are now sold with oem versions of vista so the price reduction doesn't apply to these computer owners. unfortunately, they will have to figure out a way to slipstream their o.s. when the sp's are released. the normal computer user is screwed.

also, it seems that you are mixing apples and oranges because the price reduction is targeting those still using winxp and relunctant to spend any money on upgrading the o.s. and the hardware during the stagflation and recession affecting some parts of the u.s.

your arguments are petty and time consuming. my comments stand.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 2:06 PM

What a load of crap. I formated my XP machine and installed Vista Premium and it runs just fine. No upgrades to the PC were needed. There goes yet an other theory of yours.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 3:04 PM

Learn the difference between "some" and "all". Sheesh. Just because it worked fine for you doesn't mean that it'll work fine for everyone.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 11:27 AM

It's not "slashing". It's mearly making the cost more reasonable.

"He also conceded that the initial pricing for Vista may have been a little ambitious."

Read: Consumers aren't buying into our monopoly 1.0 strategy so lets adapt and conquer. The cost of Vista still isn't low enough near it's value.

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 3:44 AM

The only real issue I've had in my Vista usage both at home and at work is the over-obvious-smack-you-in-the-face-I-can't-believe-MS-shipped-it-like-this-and-is-taking-so-long-to-fix-it file copy issues.

And that prelim hotfix did nothing.

Score: 0

By bolaris

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 9:50 PM

It follows suit that everything balances out and eventually "You Get What You Pay For".

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 8:31 PM

Then you think that if you don't pay anything then you don't get anything? I haven't paid anything for software for YEARS and I'm doing great.

Score: 0

By lfmmoura

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 5:55 PM

As an IT consultant who has tested Vista from early betas, my take on the problem with Vista lies in two things:

1 - As it is, Vista comes bloated with too many services the end user, or even the business user (heck, probably even programmers) will never use. I remember my early betas would slow down even a dual core with 2Gb of RAM. I was only happy with its performance after a vist to the website speedyvista dot com. Turning off a lot of useless services made my computer fast again.

2 - MS has failed to give end-users a good reason to upgrade. Granted, back in the early days of XP, people didn't like it either. But there was a crucial difference. There was a good reason to upgrade. People were migrating from Win2000 and Win 9x. Now, Windows 2000 was not very hardware-friendly neither very gaming-oriented. And Win9x has got to be the crappiest kernel MS has ever produced, being extremely vulnerable (not only security-wise but also stability-wise) to poor or malicious coding. Therefore, going to XP was somewhat necessary.

It's been over a year since the debut of Vista, and most users still fail to see a real need to upgrade. Of course, MS can change that by making their newer products incompatible with XP. But still, Vista hasn't really been the smartest of moves by MS.

Score: 0

By pforbes

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 6:42 PM

Hello Vampirefrost! I feel happy to read your words: I've found a perfect description of my own thoughts, maybe because I belong to your generation. I am a professional of network computing since 1981. I was very young then, and Microsoft didn't even existed: we had to use Fortran and Cobol and our own imagination to create programs and networks, using IBM hardware. Our work was hard, really hard in that time. About ten years later (1991 more or less), Microsoft began to make more and more easy our work, and we felt happy. Meanwhile the computing was extended to more and more fields. Productivity increased everywhere in the world. About another ten years later Microsoft has forgotten that computing has become the backbone of industry, commerce, business, communication, governement and international affairs all over the world, and also that no big or small enterprise throws away old computers only because they are old. In many cases, as you say, they are still running Windows 3.11 for workgroups: the only goal is productivity and cost reduction. But for Microsoft it looks like their business is a new Hollywood or RIAA, instead of contributing to productivity increase and cost reductions in a bad economic moment.

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 4:00 PM

What a lot of people here seem to forget is that Vista is supposed to be a OS(Operating System) not a Application. I have been a IT manager for a fortune 500 company for 20 year, we have all kinds of systems and OSes. We even still have a few systems running Windows 3.11 for workgroups.

With that said a OS is a means to a end the more resources that a application like Vista takes up then less is available for other applications. The OS is what you use to run another program i.e. Photoshop, Word, etc.... The reason why you need more and more ram and faster and faster processor just to run a program is because of the RESOURCES that Vista takes up. I am a MSDN Premium member and have access to Beta and Alpha programs that the average user is not able to get legally. I beta tested Vista for my company and I advised them not to upgrade. I was just one of 200 that advised the company not to upgrade.

Why you might ask?
Well we use lots of in-house custom programs that just brake under Vista. The cost to upgrade from Windows 2000/XP is prohibitive.

I have bought new systems that had Vista on them and removed it. Vista is a unfinished OS and all that are using it now are pretty much just paying to be Microsoft Vista beta testers. I am not a fanboi of any OS I have and use many OSes not only because of work but for myself. There is no reason why Vista should not work on a Pentium 2 system, the only reason that it will not is because its so bloated. Make no mistake Windows Vista is a Application not a OS. Microsoft sees OS X and Linux and all the "Oh WOW" stuff thats on them and says "Me Too". Well what Microsoft forgets is that Apple and Linux has to add all that extra stuff because there are fewer Software Houses programing for these OSes then are for Windows.

Switching to Vista can be a easy one or a hard one, this depends on your computer company and if they provide drivers. I have seen private users with in the company buy so called "Vista Compatible Hardware" and it not work or if it does with limited functionality.

If Steve Jobs would open up OS X to everyone not just Apple hardware users, I think that Apple could take as much as 40% market share from Microsoft before they could get Windows 7 out the door. This was a slip by Microsoft that Apple could had taken advantage of. Linux is a great OS but it's only problem is there are just to many Destros and just because that program you download says it runs on Linux if you don't look carefully and make sure it runs on your destro, then it was just a waste. If Linux would settle on just one destro I think it could give Microsoft a run for OS dominance.

The only reason for Vista is because Microsoft wants to turn everyones PC in to a GameBox. Most people do a short list of things with there computers and they could get by with a old P2.

If you love Vista great, If you don't great too. I have looked at allot of message boards and blogs and those that do like Vista are in the minority. Allot of the "Oh WOW" features of Vista can be had by 3rd party programs.But as for me and my company we are going to hold off buying and using Vista in any of its flavors.

The only reason why Vista is doing as well as Microsoft clames is because the average user can not buy a PC with out a OS installed and in 95% of those its Windows. If all systems came with out a OS, I don't think that Vista would be selling as well as Microsoft claims.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 11:46 PM

"Well what Microsoft forgets is that Apple and Linux has to add all that extra stuff because there are fewer Software Houses programing for these OSes then are for Windows. "

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life...

"If Steve Jobs would open up OS X to everyone not just Apple hardware users, I think that Apple could take as much as 40% market share from Microsoft before they could get Windows 7 out the door"

2nd dumbest thing...wow the top two dumbest things I've ever heard in my life...all in one post!! You really ARE a good IT Manager!!

"Linux is a great OS but it's only problem is there are just to many Destros and just because that program you download says it runs on Linux if you don't look carefully and make sure it runs on your destro, then it was just a waste"

This is also up there...I'd have to put it at number 3 or 4...

"If Linux would settle on just one destro I think it could give Microsoft a run for OS dominance."

Who is this "Linux" you're speaking of...mr IT Manager for a fortune 500 company for 20 years??

I have to push this up to #3 dumbest thing...

"The only reason for Vista is because Microsoft wants to turn everyones PC in to a GameBox."

Wow REALLY?? I wasn't aware of that, thanks for clearing that up!

Well, thank you for all this great insight mr IT manager...you've really helped out the community with your vast knowledge of all things IT, ESPECIALLY your deep insights into all the various OS's out there!

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 1:03 AM

wow some one woke up on the wrong side of the computer screen today.

Lol poor Niro I see you typing allot but I don't see rebuttal's just useless insults.

Poor Niro what IT Manager pissed in your coffee?

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 12:22 PM

Nope I just don't believe you're an IT manager with comments like that...and if you are, you can't be a very good one. I don't know how to rebutt "linux needs to get it's act together and have less distros"...you do know, linux is not a company...right??

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 4:13 PM

I thought Linux was an application? :-D

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 12:45 PM

Oh wow really well uh-yuck well gee golly never knew that.

Well apparently you don't know anything about Linux so let me give you the short but sweet lesson.
The major destros of Linux are:
RedHat
Debian
Slackware
Fedora

Companies will build there Linux on one of these destros then add to them.

In most cases if you download and try to run a program that is written for say RedHat, it will not run on Debian. There are exceptions to this but because you don't really know anything and just want to argue so I will leave it at this.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 8:32 PM

Learn how to type better.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 5:57 PM

By the time Windows 7 comes out it's highly likely that most people will be using a 64-bit OS and applications which will require considerably more resources. Personally, I don't think there is any point to releasing a 32-bit version of Windows 7. Heck, a good portion of people will probably using computers and operating systems that support UEFI in place of a traditional BIOS. The P6 processors (Pentium Pro, Pentium II and Pentium III) are dinosaurs and became obsolete a long time ago.

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

edited Mar 1, 2008 - 9:17 PM

Pentium 2 and 3 obsolete? lol
I use them for proxy servers and for web servers and file servers. What just because its not top of the line that makes it obsolete? I have many systems and laptops most I don't do more then just about every one else does, and then I have several gaming systems. Think about what 80% to 90% of people do with their computer's.
Check E-mail
Get on to the net
Use a Office program
Play simple games like solitaire
just to name a few.
To do these you don't need a Über mega system, for a game like Crysis yes, but you don't need a 3GHz system with 8GB RAM and with 2 Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX Extreme 768MB GDDR3 RAM video card running in SLI mode. Thats like buying a Formula 1 race car to drive to the store. Sure it might look kool and you can go hella fast. But in the end you can only drive the speed limit. The more RESOURCES THAT VISTA TAKES THE LESS YOU HAVE TO RUN OTHER PROGRAMS. Yes by the time Windows 7 hits the streets most new systems will be 64bit or better. But that will leave all the 32bit users and programs out.

Most programmers and programs do not take advantage of 64bit processors or even multi-core processors. Until that happens on a large scale then 32bit will be around for a long time to come.

UEFI has a ways to go before it is adopted by main stream PC's. The Apple Mac's are the only ones right now that have it. There are a few others PC mobo manufactures that have it, but Apple has it on all its systems.

As for things being outdated and dinosaurs next time you buy a printer (laser or ink) look at the processor its the equivalent to a 486 (in most cases its a RISC processor but still runs at or near 33MHz) in most cases. The router you have that has, you guessed it a chip as fast as a old 486 processor (most run at 20MHz to 25MHz).

Again Vista is a Application not a OS anymore. Windows has not been a OS for a long time, and has become more of a application then a OS.

So the next time you are playing a game and get a little lag time, don't blame the game or your system blame Windows.

THE MORE SYSTEM RESOURCES THAT VISTA TAKES THE LESS YOU HAVE FOR THE PROGRAMS YOU WANT TO RUN.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 8:07 PM

"To do these you don't need a Über mega system, for a game like Crysis yes, but you don't need a 3GHz system with 8GB RAM and with 2 Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX Extreme 768MB GDDR3 RAM video card running in SLI mode"

No...you're right, you don't need 2 nvidia cards in SLI for alot of people. How about the traders that work for my company...the guys that run 8 screens, receive market data and do heavy duty calculations on each and every tick? Suddenly...that 3Ghz system is just not enough...we're running mostly dual dual core or dual quad core systems...suddenly, 3GB of RAM doesn't always cut it for the applications they run...XP doesn't recognize 8GB of RAM (but then again, as an IT manager in fortune 500 companies for over 20 years, you knew that 32 bit systems can't address that much RAM, right??).

Not every company needs the horse power that a trader needs from a PC...but something tells me, my company is not the only financial company out there that employees traders.

"As for things being outdated and dinosaurs next time you buy a printer (laser or ink) look at the processor its the equivalent to a 486 (in most cases its a RISC processor but still runs at or near 33MHz) in most cases. The router you have that has, you guessed it a chip as fast as a old 486 processor (most run at 20MHz to 25MHz). "

What does the processor in a router or a printer have ANYTHING to do with a workstation???

It's kind of like telling the airline industry the new jet engines are going to make the old propeller engines obsolete...and then someone else saying old propeller engines are just fine, just look at the engine in your car!

"Windows has not been a OS for a long time, and has become more of a application then a OS. "

"So the next time you are playing a game and get a little lag time, don't blame the game or your system blame Windows. "

Huh...you don't blame the drivers, your blame windows? So because unreal runs slower in linux you blame linux? Is linux just an "application"? If WoW runs slower on OSX it's the OS? OSX is an "application"? You do have the concept of drivers? How about process priority? How about resource reallocation? How about disabling memory eating applications/features before starting a memory hungry game? How about lookig back to XP launch and rewriting that same exact post you just posted, only replacing XP with 98 and Vista with XP?

I mean, I wouldn't expect an IT manager with over 20 years of experience in fortune 500 companies to know any of this crazy tech stuff.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 4:16 PM

hahaa!! man o'man I'm bored

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 1:27 AM

Addressing physical memory above 4 GB requires more than the 32 bits of address offered by the standard operating mode of Intel (32-bit) processors. 64bit O.S.(Operating System) do not suffer from this problem or O.S.'s that can support more then 1 CPU (Central Processing Unit these are for example Intel or AMD).
Does this mean that your new 64bit CPU can see more then 3Gb of RAM. No because the Windows XP and Vista 32bit version can only see a max of 4Gb of ram but because of system over head this is usually reduced to a little over 3Gb of RAM.

Windows Version Support Windows 2000 Professional Windows XP
AWE API and 4 GB of physical RAM

Windows XP SP2 and later
AWE API and 4 GB of physical address space

Windows 2000 Server Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
AWE API and 4 GB of RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Standard Edition
AWE API and 4 GB of physical address space

Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
8 processors and 32 GB RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Enterprise Edition
8 processors and 64 GB RAM

Windows 2000 Advanced Server
8 processors and 8 GB RAM

Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
32 processors and 32 GB RAM (support for 64 GB was not offered because of a lack of systems for testing)

Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition
32 processors and 64 GB RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition
32 processors and 128 GB RAM

What kind of trading software you using the ones we use can run on Windows 98SE, and I am sure you know Niro that it's not Windows that lets you have multi-screens its a combination of video card, software that can recognize it and Window drivers. If your company needs that type of a system to run trading software then you need to check your software. And last time I looked traders make a small percent of computer users.

Well prop airplanes (Propeller airplanes) are still made and some prefer then over jet.

Think of your systems Resources as you trying to drag race with a trailer hitched to your car. Microsoft keeps adding more and more to Windows, at the rate Microsoft is going, you will need a supercomputer to run it.

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Mar 1, 2008 - 3:52 PM

It is the first time in history Microsoft ever lowered a price for retail copies of an os.

That definetely does say something, retail copies of vista are just not selling.

Now oem's, that is a different area as long as oem's like dell and hp sell computers, Microsoft will be selling their os.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 2:25 PM

"It is the first time in history Microsoft ever lowered a price for retail copies of an os."

Um...they lowered the price of Windows 98 from $100 and some odd dollars to $89...are you saying this was just a retailer move?

Score: 0

By Qlib

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 2:33 PM

the english ultimate 32bit FullDVD is about 860$ here.. they better start makin those pricecuts OUTSIDE usa as well or im gonna stick to advocating ppl install the corporate XP version and avoid WGA alltogether using various alternative patching sources..

well..until Vista SP2 is out im not even gonna consider recommending anything but XP CORP anyway... and I dont think SP2 is gonna be any better than SP1 anyway thats been pulled..

Windows 7 maybe?.. if linux didnt suck so incredibly hard id ditch windows years ago... maybe I can afford a mac if I rob a bank...

Score: 0

By Eeyan

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 1:35 PM

After reading the postings below, I would suggest this is nothing to do with good bad OS etc............. It is more likely MS want an increase cash flow from that product. Checkout Economics 101. Anyway, I find Vista Ultimate x64 is very stable. My only grumble is that some x86(32) won't run or are not yet updated to handle x64.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 6:00 PM

The only time 32-bit software won't run under 64-bit Vista is if it uses a 16-bit installer that Vista doesn't have a 32-bit replacement for. These kinds of programs are very rare.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 7:18 PM

Or it's a game.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 10:48 PM

I've had no trouble getting games to run under 64-bit Vista. It doesn't matter if it's one of the older cheap $10 games in the bargain bin at Fred Meyers without the Vista Certified logo or the Works With Vista logo or a more modern game such as Doom 3.

Score: 0

By NunjaBusiness

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 9:59 AM

I have said it before and I will keep on saying it. Vista's #1 weakness is ignorant, incompetent and just plain stupid users who think they can put the latest high-tech OS on underpowered crappy walmart PCs and have everything work.

Unlike the vast majority of posters here, I actually make my living in IT (and have for 25 years.) I install and use daily: 2008 Server, Vista (32-bit and 64-bit), 2003, XP, 2000, BSD, and several Linux distros. The easiest and fastest to install and configure and use is ... surprise! 2008 and Vista. XP actually takes twice as long to install, even with service packs already downloaded.

You mouth-breathing apple freaks only have a security advantage so far because basically no one CARES enough to spend the time to write exploits for it. Penguin lovers who claim ease of use and installation with Linux either haven't actually done it at all or are using all 5-year-old hardware which actually has Linux drivers that work reliably now.

As to backwards compatibility on Vista: Does anyone ever actually bother to read or research before they make these claims? Compatibility mode solves 95% of problems with the few programs not already made to work with it.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 8:43 PM

What linux distros are causing problems?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 1:06 PM

I also use all those OS's, and why should I have to use a compatibility mode for an operating system? The OS should work to fit my needs, not the opposite. That is the point of an OS, to work as a tool to get what I need done, with as little hassle as possible.

Vista gets in the way. UAC gets in the way. Turning it off gets in the way.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 6:04 PM

UAC gets in the way because most people don't know how to properly set up their Vista PC. The user name you create when you first install Vista is supposed to be your "administrator" user name. You're then supposed to create at least one additional user name that you use for running your applications. Once this is done Vista will behave just like most Linux distributions do under Gnome or KDE.

Score: 0

By Poof

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 1:10 PM

Well, if you indeed do use all those OSes, why do you NOT think a compatibility mode is needed?

Have you not ever fully configured BSD? Notice in the kernel these little gems?

options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4
options COMPAT_FREEBSD5 # Compatible with FreeBSD5
options COMPAT_FREEBSD6 # Compatible with FreeBSD6

Or, in /usr/ports/misc

compat3x, compat4x, compat5x, compat6x?

Yes, all OS upgrades have some form of compatibility modes. Just some, you don't notice the same way.

Score: 0

By freegoo

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 12:32 PM

I've run Vista on a decent rig, Athlon 4200X2, 1.5 gigs ram, Nvidia 8800 etc...

Vista ran great on a fresh install, but when I added the 3 or 4 3rd party apps I use things got a little sluggish. Particularly with one program that ran in the background and would popup when I held down a key. After it had been idle for a while the program would take 30 seconds to respond. I wrote the vendor and was told it was the way Windows unloads programs from memory that aren't being actively used. I'm guessing Vista must be a little more aggressive than XP in that regard because I never have that issue now that I've downgraded. I could add more Ram, but Vista is so Hell bent on using all available Ram that I don't believe it would make a difference in this case. If I can find a way to prevent Vista from unloading specific programs, maybe that'll make it useful for me.

Anyway, my point is not all people with performance issues with Vista have cheapo Wal-Mart PC's. My rig is getting a little long on the tooth, but if Vista's minimum specs are higher then Microsoft has a major problem.

Score: 0

By skags442

edited Mar 1, 2008 - 12:45 PM

you should have more memory, i wouldnt run vista on any pc that dosn't have atleast 2 gig's of ram

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 11:37 AM

WTF? 2GB of ram? Just for the OS?

Man!

183/1899MB Memory
0/3922MB Swap

Gutsy 7.10 with all the bells and whistles turned on.

WTF is in vista that causes it to bloat so much?

Score: 0

By FernandoMontreal

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 6:49 PM

A huge monopoly behind. If things were more competitive, M$ would be worry about performance. Nobody can compete in the actual circumstances (unless you switch to a MAC) so there is no need to invest in performance. At least Europe is fining M$ when they break market conditions.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 7:37 AM

Well well, it looks that MS finally realized that the only way they're gonna offload that crap is to slash the price and decrappify it a little with SP1. Finally they put someone with some god d*** brains in the marketing department. How dare they try to sell that crap for more then 20 bucks though. Oh well whatever, that's why so-called piracy exists... to level the playing ground and tell these f*cking companies "hey look, if you're gonna force us to use this sh*t, make the price fair or we'll just take it."

Massive respect to Paradox and all groups like them for looking after the Davids.

Score: 0

By fadeblack

edited Mar 1, 2008 - 6:52 AM

I bought Vista Platnium OEM for 100 bucks before this sell. I waited a whole year to wait to upgrade to DX10 because of all the bad press I read. WOW they where all wrong. They must have been trying to run it on crappy systems because VISTA ROCKS!! Only thing I dont like is that its alot slower to install programs. Installing VISTA itself though was FAST and EASY!! Call Of Duty 4 runs like a wet dream and looks like one too. Once you cut out the fat and become familier with Vista to tweak it to your likeing XP is a memory.... I had WAY WAY WAY more problems upgrading from WINME to XP... BUY VISTA!!

My Vista Experience Rates 5.9 baby!!!
Maybe thats why Vista IS SO AWSOME on my PC.
And sucks on yours HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 8:47 PM

On what hardware?

Score: 0

By fadeblack

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 5:21 AM

Intel Core 2 6750
OCZ SLI 2048MB DDR2 800
EVGA 680i
8800 GTS
3 WD Caviar 250GB SATA-3G HD 7200/16MB/SATA-3G
set in RAID 0 strip
Ultra 700 watt power

CPU shows 5.5 all the rest 5.9

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 8:49 PM

What if we don't all have $1300 just laying around? Vista is even more expensive than I Thought! *BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!*

Score: 0

By fadeblack

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 11:42 PM

2 of the hard drives and the video card was taken from last years parts. I did shell out 900 bucks with Vista and the rest. But I needed it bad as my last pci-e motherboard died along with the one of the dual channel ram and the powersupply. Also until now I was still using ddr and 939 chip. If I didnt have the money I would have bought one piece every month. I built many a PC this way back in the day when they where super expensive.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 6:16 PM

It's still a lot of money.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 1:07 PM

LOL.

There isn't a single game that uses DX10 to make a difference versus DX9. You were scammed, bub.

Score: 0

By why hello there

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 6:19 AM

Microsoft Vista Windows OS 2025 Xtra Premium Special Edition

E P I C F A I L !

Even with the reduced prices I still don't want to buy it. Might as well wait until Windows 7 now.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 11:49 PM

The RETAIL "blue" box copy of Windows XP Pro sold for $299.00 and up in the beginning of 2002. Vista must be a bomb if they're charging even less for it in the stores six years later...

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 8:58 PM

If it looks like a fire sale, and smells like a fire sale, well, then it _is_ a fire sale. M$ Vista is a total failure.

Too many versions. Horrible performance. Horrible user experience (are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? LOL). Lousy software compatibility. Outrageous system requirements. I could just keep going....

Ubuntu $0
Open Office $0
Firefox $0
New/Upgraded hardware $0

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 4, 2008 - 9:23 AM

Ubuntu - Isn't that what you just described above?

OpenOffice - Same?

FireFox - Works great in Vista :)

New hardware: Imagine that. To run the latest OS at full functionality you need the latest hardware.

What that last bit shocks people like you is beyond me. Did XP suddenly stop working? Did 2000? 95?

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 8:48 PM

I agree.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 10:53 AM

You really are a clueless troll. There is nothing wrong with Vista. In fact it runs great with the right hardware. You spew your vial hate of MS where ever you can. You are a troll that has no idea what they are talking about.

Yes there are free solutions but the average user is going to have no clue how to use them. If any thing is over priced it would be that piece of shi% that you call Mac. Funny that you say MS is so bad but it can be used on Mac's.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 5, 2008 - 12:59 PM

If you would consider yourself the average user, just try ubuntu linux. I think you'll be amazed.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 8:50 PM

Hardware that costs $$$$.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 11:11 AM

Really no kidding. I am amazed by the amount of people that get all upset when older hardware will not run well or at all with Vista. Everyone wants something for nothing. I remember back in the day when Windows 3.11 was replaced with 95 and people got all pissy when their old hardware wouldn't run that well either. People just refuse to accept that technology is advancing faster and faster and seem to think that everything they own should last forever. If you have crap it won't work plain and simple.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 9:13 AM

you prove MS and Windows it at the very least, decent and capable but don't realize it because you are not all that bright. Yes...keep on using and spreading the analogy, that MS/Win still is preferred over all the handfuls of FREE alternatives.
Gotta love it

Score: 0

By FernandoMontreal

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 8:57 PM

crap at half price is still crap!
too many problems for such an expensive product.
After all these years you will think they know how to put things together. Holding the OS with tape doesn't count as 'putting together'.

Score: 0

By jim66

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 7:06 PM

I bet that all the people running a INTEL
915,,,945 chipsets are real anti microsuc
running vista,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 2, 2008 - 8:52 PM

But my 915 runs ubuntu great! *BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!*

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 6:04 PM

I can hear the anti-MS people out there:

"OH NOES!!11!! A Fire Sale!"

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Feb 29, 2008 - 4:14 PM

Not to be cheap, but Vista needs to be at the sub 150 pricepoint for all versions. Ultimate should be 150/160, Premium 100/110 and basic 50/60 RETAIL. Quit the freaking upgrade specifics - make it so the retail versions allow either an upgrade or a clean full install. I would and will never buy an OS for more than 200 because even though *in my opinion* it's a good OS and worthy upgrade from XP, it's not worth that much. I love Vista but there's really nothing evolutionary about it. The security is a bit better (esp in the 64bit version), a prettier GUI and again, in my opinion, a tad more stability (i'm sure others won't agree) but it's not worth all that money. I do love my Vista. I've never had a crash, it's never slowed down on me, I havent had a single issue with it and I'm running it on 2 desktops and 1 laptop (1 new desktop, so it's running everything with vista certified drivers, 1 older desktop and 1 new laptop).

What OS is worth 200+ for me? Gosh...one that doesn't exist currently. Fast and responsive, extremely crash/failure resistant (obviously if it fails because of hardware, this is acceptable), so smart it can find and download drivers wherever they are on the internet (can truly emulate it's older incarnation and utilize older drivers seamlessly), so smart it won't allow stupid people to install 10 year old software on it that will muck it up (or emulate seamlessly to allow older software to install into a sandbox environment), so smart it won't catch a virus (or at least block installation of non AV software until AV software is installed), I can talk to it and it can talk to me...like kitt from Knight Rider (not AI advanced, but like those really good phone voice recognition systems). I know this is way out there, but I demand alot for my money, and this is not impossible.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Feb 29, 2008 - 4:46 PM

*YAWN*

I would and will never buy an OS for more than 200

Vista Home Premium: $97.87 (Free shipping)
Vista Ultimate: $169.90 (Free Shipping)

Prices received via email today from Mwave.com.

Looks like your prayers have been answered...

(Why don't people check pricing before posting...about pricing?)

Score: 0

By oldcodger

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 11:41 AM

Does amyone really give a sh*t about PC_Tool's opinion. I certainlay don't. The *YAWN* at the beginning of the post is what we all do when we read his worthless contributions !

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 4, 2008 - 9:20 AM

Not a single opinion posted there, troll. The post you replied to quoted *actual* prices on *actual* retail websites. Nothing subjective about it.

Go troll somewhere else.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 12:05 AM

yea for worthless unneeded upgrades. and as any IT professional will tell you, the in place upgrade is ALWAYS less stable then a full OS wipe and reinstall. Hence the only thing of value is the FULL version. And even with a $100 discount for the minimal acceptable version Home premium its still too much. In other words. Unless your getting a new machine don't bother wasting your time and resources on a upgrade to Vista that is nothing of the knid to begin with.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 4, 2008 - 9:17 AM

OEM full version. :)

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 8:49 PM

I won't pay more than $0.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 3:00 PM

lol, some people...your ignorance because you cannot or are incapalbe of running Vista is someone else's fault?
I will be buying 2 more copies just to put on my slow poke PCs. Will I complain my 10year old hardware is slow? Of course not, I'm more logical and rational than that. hoozah

Score: 0

By litbang@comcast.net

edited Feb 29, 2008 - 2:56 PM

I HAVE WINDOWS BASIC, WILL SERVICE PK. 1 HELP
MY E-MAIL?

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Mar 2, 2008 - 12:08 AM

I'm sorry, NO. SP1 though it has shipped to OEMs is fundamentally flawed in that it created more incompatibilities then it corrected... And unfortunately the Basic Tier of the OS is still not going to be effective as a end user product. In other words. start looking at Thunderbird for your email needs and forget about what passes for email code in Vista basic.

Score: 0

By madmike007

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 2:39 PM

Desperation rears its head..

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 6:59 AM

Desperate of what? Linux? Apple?

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Mar 1, 2008 - 8:50 PM

Of M$ and Apple.

Score: 0

By reptile168

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 2:36 PM

They finally understand that lower price = more sales.

Score: 0

By pforbes

posted Feb 29, 2008 - 2:23 PM

After 1 year most people keep using XP and even 9x in their business, and I know some friends of mine who have bought new machines and downgraded afterwards. Wow!

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Mar 3, 2008 - 11:15 AM

Many of the business downgrades that I have seen has been caused by third party software creators that have crap installers or just crap software not wanting to get their software up sot speed. There is a ton of real crap software that is used in business. Then there is the fact that a business tends to run a PC for as long as possible. This often means hardware that is to old to run the newest stuff.

Score: 0