Microsoft Sets Windows 7 Pricing, Upgrade Programs

[Brent_Justice]

I'll be getting the Ultimate x64 version, as I did with Vista. When I got Vista I got it through Newegg as part of a hardware combo, usually Newegg has the OS for a little cheaper if you buy some hardware with it, I hope they do the same for Win7.

 

[Ockie]

This is a great price.

 

[nilepez]

Does the upgrade version require an existing installation or just swapping in the XP/Vista cd/dvd at some point during a clean Windows 7 installation?

My guess is it'd be quicker if it's installed. Otherwise, you'll probably have to install 7 without it's key...then install it again with your key (and presumably as a clean install).
I doubt you can do a CD swap. you couldn't do that with vista.

But if it does work like vista, the end result is that consumers can always use the Upgrade disk, even if they have no OS.

Microsoft selling non-OEM copies of Windows for reasonable prices? Say it isn't so!
These prices are awesome. They don't affect me, as I'm not sure I'll ever have to buy a retail copy of Windows, but awesome nonetheless.

The sale prices are nice. The regular prices are in line with Vista SP1 upgrade pricing.

Huh. $50 for a couple of weeks when no-one has money to spend, then 2.5x that later when people might have the cash. Looks like I'll be sticking with Vista and XP.

While I agree that it'd be nice if the sale lasted a month or 2, I don't know why you assume nobody has money in July, but they'll have tons of money in October.

I'll be dropping $220+ on the ultimate version as well as an ssd if I can.
I want fast...

What do you need in Ultimate that Professional doesn't have? AFAIK, the main difference is bitlocker.....I'll probably get Ultimate using Technet, but I think Pro is good enough...and even Home Premium is fine if you don't need to connect to a domain.

 

[nilepez]

Oops...and you don't need the virtual copy of XP.

 

[LOCO LAPTOP]

Where is "Windows 7 Gamers Edition"?

 

[Exavior]

First off, I've had TechNet subs since the program started. Second off, it's not "trial" software, nor is it free; I am quite well aware of why TechNet exists and sit squarely at the top of the kind of person it exists for.

My point - the one people keep missing - is that for the so-called enthusiasts, if you're using Microsoft products on your own PCs, if you're supporting Microsoft products in your business or career, then TechNet is worth every damned cent for the yearly subscription considering what you get - and it's not just software but an entire range of products and services tailored to the people that keep the world's I.T. infrastructure running.

That's the point.

Considering how many people will be in-line to support Windows 7 when it's released, and with Office 2010 coming on fast, the cost of those two products together is more than a yearly subscription to TechNet and you get not only those products in all their varied forms, but all the support options as well so you can provide even better end-run support to those people asking for your help.

Got it?

So you are saying that right now I pay $349 a years and can upgrade all 10 servers my work has have to server 2008 server, all 200 clients to Vista and Office 2007? Not only that but I can save the $12,000 we were going to looking at spending for SQL 2008 with 2 cpu licenses for the new software that runs off a SQL backend, and download that also?

When you look at the technet site it clearly states the the benifits of the service is:

Microsoft software licensed for evaluation purposes. Evaluate full-version commercial products without time limits or feature limits, including Microsoft operating systems, servers, and Office System software. With full-version software, you can make informed decisions about new technologies and deployments at your own pace.

Software is licensed for evaluation purposes only—not for use in production environments. TechNet Plus subscriptions include the most recent Microsoft software version. Visit Microsoft Software License Terms for details on your use rights for evaluation software and other components of the TechNet Subscription product.

Evaluation Software. One user may install and use copies of the evaluation software listed in the COMPONENTS.TXT file, even if you obtained a server license. You may use the evaluation software only to evaluate it. You may not use it in a live operating, in a staging environment or with data that has not been sufficiently backed up. If the evaluation software comes with its own license agreement, this agreement will control. If that other license agreement gives you additional rights that do not conflict with express limitations in this agreement, you also have those rights.

I will admit I do myself do not use technet, even though we have an account here at work that we got a few weeks ago. But i have never once see it say anywhere that you get anything other than software that is meant to be used as an evaluation. I have never seen it stated that you get unlimited copies to deploy throughout your entire company. Now I will admit that for it can be worth the money for a person that supports these types of products. but that isn't what I have been argueeing with. My agruements have just been with your and the other people's posts, in that unless I have missed something for technet, you do not get unlimited copies of the software for free (other than cost of the site subscription) to deploy to an entire company network or a home network for use in the same manor as if you actually purchased the software.

What I posted above is the only thing I have ever seen listed for technet which goes against what you and others seem to be telling everyone. They can't save money by going and buying a technet subscription to get every single Microsoft program to run on their all their home machines in a legit manor.

If I am wrong, then I would greatly apperiate if you would point me to where it states that with our subscription I can upgrade my entire company's production network and save my work a lot of money compared to use buying Open License copies.

I can't really do this because I dont know which one I need. An upgrade might not work because I use XP I got at the University. They didn't get a release for 64-bit Vista so I haven't upgraded yet and there is no info yet if there will be 64-bit Win 7 from the University yet.

If you have a 32-bit version, you can use that key for the 64-bit install.

can someone please explain to me how an upgrade works?
i have vista ultimate retail, if i got a win7 ultimate upgrade, what exactly would the process be?
and i would want a clean install.

I have Vista currently. Does anyone know if I can do a "clean install" with the upgrade? Or better yet, those who have Vista then upgraded to Win7 beta, were there any problems?

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before (I'm having a bit of trouble following the thread) but I have vista 32(x86) so if i get an upgrade (to say w7 64 bit) and I have a clean install with the upgrade when i do. Will i then maybe a year later be able to do another system reinstall with this "upgrade" or is it limited to a 1 time system clean install do to myself getting it through an online service or is it also a cd that is shipped to you, allowing you to do as many clean installs as you want?

You have the choice between doing either a clean install or a upgrade of the current verison. However in either case you have to have Vista installed to start with to actually start the "upgrade" from Vista to 7. However you can choice to do the upgrade in the form of a clean install. That is what happens if you start with XP. You are upgrading in that you are going from an older version to the 7. As for the process. You insert the DVD, click install now, follow a few screens and let it do its job. On one of the screens it will ask if you if you want to ugprade or do a clean install.

Corbin, as for your question. First off going from 32-bit to 64-bit, a clean install is the only opition, although you can use the 32-bit OS to upgrade from. As for the rest of your question. Just like with every other version of windows, the key is only good for 1 computer. So once you install it on one computer you can't turn around and try to upgrade a second computer. Now if you later uninstall/format the first computer, then you can upgrade a second computer with it. It will probably complain and make you call Microsoft to manually activate it over the phone that time, but it will let you use it on a second computer as long as that is the only computer you are using it on. In the case of a system reinstall where you are starting from scratch, if you are using the upgrade version then you will need to first start by resintalling Vista first, then go through the entire upgrade process. Or what what would be the much better route is to make a system backup as soon as you first get the Windows 7 machine up and running (same should be done for Vista) then when you need to restart from scratch later restore the backup instead.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

After finding out I read it wrong, Vista just seems better now. Lol.

Considering Apple is releasing Snow Leopard for $29 upgrade, wasn't it?

I may have to go give ubuntu a try.

$29!!! Snow leopard is like a gift from god. I only have to pay $29 to upgrade the OS on my $3,000 computer that I paid way to much for in the first place just to get OSX.



Congratulations to apple more of their stupid marketing bullshit.

I have a Dell machine running Vista that I paid $800 for and a equally spec'd Mac that I paid $2,500+ for. I can upgrade to Windows 7 for $100, or I can upgrade to snow leopard for $29.

The SL upgrade looks nice on paper but when you use your fucking head and factor in the premium you pay'd for the Mac in the first place what is really the better deal?

$1,000 for the Dell with the same specs that now runs Windows 7

or

$2,529 for the Mac with the same specs running Snow Leopard.

 

[Vermillion]

What do you need in Ultimate that Professional doesn't have? AFAIK, the main difference is bitlocker.....I'll probably get Ultimate using Technet, but I think Pro is good enough...and even Home Premium is fine if you don't need to connect to a domain.

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

Ultimate also contains this:

Bitlocker
Bitlocker to Go
AppLocker
Boot from VHD
Branche Cache
Federated Search
MUI Langauge packs
Subsystem for UNIX-based applications
Media Center

 

[Serpico]

I have a Dell machine running Vista that I paid $800 for and a equally spec'd Mac that I paid $2,500+ for. I can upgrade to Windows 7 for $100, or I can upgrade to snow leopard for $29.

Bullshit. Price out i7 Xeons (not Core 2), an i7 mobo, ECC registered DIMMs, and building it yourself comes out to about a $50-$100 difference on Newegg, except you're getting no broad manufacturer support. Price out the same machine from Dell or HP and it comes out to $500-$1000 more than what Apple charges for the Mac Pro. Ever since they moved from G5 to Intel CPUs the Mac Pros have been among the cheapest Xeon workstations out there.

Price out a 24" iMac versus an XPS One and for the same price the iMac has a faster CPU (2.66 C2D vs 2.2ghz C2Q), a much faster GPU (9400M versus Intel integrated), double the HD space (640GB vs 320GB), and DDR3. On top of that it has a H-IPS panel that is otherwise found in the $1100 NEC 2490WUXi, one of the absolute best out there. The XPS One uses an inferior, cheaper MVA panel. That panel alone makes it a tremendous value, the fact that you also get faster components and more storage is icing on the cake. As for the 20" iMac, no comparison, it is faster, has a better GPU, has more HD storage, and is $150 cheaper than the 20" XPS One. And all of the iMacs can actually have their CPUs and GPUs upgraded, you're stuck with limited options and low quality displays on the XPS.

The Macbook Air is roughly half the price of and twice as fast as the competing Dell Adamo. Again, there is really no comparison.

What's wrong with Apple's desktop lineup is that there are no headless Core 2 or consumer level Core i7 machines with PCI-E expansion. The Mac Mini is garbage, overpriced because it uses expensive subnotebook components to cram into that tiny enclosure. But for the current machines Apple sells, they are extremely price and feature competitive with other PC manufacturers.

So yeah, calling total shenanigans on your argument.

 

[Serpico]

I think these prices are great. Full versions cost less than Vista did when it first launched, I don't see why people are complaining. I'm curious to see how OEM pricing works out.

Still planning on using my friend's MS employee discount to get a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate, but at these prices I wouldn't be bummed out at all if I had to buy an upgrade pack to Windows 7 Pro the regular way.

 

[nilepez]

I find this actually a little bit disappointing.

MS needed to do two things with the pricing and licensing for Windows 7 to really get people to upgrade. Pricing is the only way MS could bungle the Windows 7 launch and I don't think they dropped the price enough.

I don't think it matters. Home users rarely install an OS. They buy a computer and use whatever it comes with. That wasn't always the case, but that's because 10 years ago, there was a much higher percentage of enthusiast/power users.

The vast majority will upgrade when they change their machine. This is exactly what's happened with Vista as well.

1. The pricing needs to be lower then what it is at least for Home Premium. Saving $10 on the upgrade and $40 on the full retail is hardly a price break at all, especially with the economy in the crapper. Professional and Ultimate are business/enthusiast so I have no issue paying more for those versus Home Premium. But personally I think Windows 7 Home Premium should be $65 for an Upgrade and $125 for the retail disc.

I'm not sure why any home user would buy a full version of Vista. Regardless, home premium upgrades will likely sell for around 89-99 at places like Amazon. That's about what XP home sold for when it came out (and Home premium clearly has more features, for those who need them).

These don't seem like bad prices to me.

2. Multi-computer licensing is needed for Home Premium if they want to keep the cost at $200 for a retail disc. Say two computers for $200. $100 a piece for a full retail version of Windows 7 HP wouldn't be bad at all. Better yet they could have kept the price the same and made it a 3 PC license for $240.

If you were suggesting a family pack upgrade, I'd be right with you, but I don't see the point for full retail versions. It'd be a family pack that maybe 1% of the market could potentially use. An upgrade license, however might get some people that wouldn't otherwise upgrade to do so (though even then I'm skeptical of how large the market is).

I do like their limited pre-order upgrade option pricing. So I can see myself pre-ordering a copy or two of Windows 7 Home Premium.

I agree, it's a great deal, and I do wish they were extending it out until the end of July.
Personally, I think I'm reupping my technet sub, so there's no point in getting in on this, but if I was, I think I'd go with one pro. I could use vista on of my other machines.

 

[SilverSliver]

Wait a sec -- so do you need your current installation of Vista or XP's CD key -- or can you just load up the upgrade and it will recognize if you have a valid copy?

 

[Exavior]

Wait a sec -- so do you need your current installation of Vista or XP's CD key -- or can you just load up the upgrade and it will recognize if you have a valid copy?

You have to have a valid copy of Vista or XP installed

 

[Corbin]

Corbin, as for your question. First off going from 32-bit to 64-bit, a clean install is the only opition, although you can use the 32-bit OS to upgrade from. As for the rest of your question. Just like with every other version of windows, the key is only good for 1 computer. So once you install it on one computer you can't turn around and try to upgrade a second computer. Now if you later uninstall/format the first computer, then you can upgrade a second computer with it. It will probably complain and make you call Microsoft to manually activate it over the phone that time, but it will let you use it on a second computer as long as that is the only computer you are using it on. In the case of a system reinstall where you are starting from scratch, if you are using the upgrade version then you will need to first start by resintalling Vista first, then go through the entire upgrade process. Or what what would be the much better route is to make a system backup as soon as you first get the Windows 7 machine up and running (same should be done for Vista) then when you need to restart from scratch later restore the backup instead.

Okay thanks. All I want to do is do a clean install every year and a half or so, on this system. So I can still use the upgrade but i'd have to reinstall vista first? sounds good to me.

 

[Exavior]

Okay thanks. All I want to do is do a clean install every year and a half or so, on this system. So I can still use the upgrade but i'd have to reinstall vista first? sounds good to me.

Yes, you could reinstall Vista than upgrade. Or you could do like I said, make a backup after you do the upgrade then just restort back to that. Which when you do you will not have to worry about reinstalling Vista first, nor will you have to worry about the activation as if you make the backup after you activate it, as it will stay activated when you restore the backup.

 

[TheRapture]

Ehhhh....no cheaper pre-order for the Ultimate version...which means you would need to pay 219 bucks for that one. Bah....I think I will be on Vista x64 for a while, I see no compelling reason to "upgrade" my two pc's with a large service pack type release.


No big deal. Might sell one of my Vista copies later on and get it...

 

[SilverSliver]

You have to have a valid copy of Vista or XP installed

Will I need to find my old Vista Ultimate CD key? I'm missing a box of software from moving and I believe that disk was in it.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

Bullshit. Price out i7 Xeons (not Core 2), an i7 mobo, ECC registered DIMMs, and building it yourself comes out to about a $50-$100 difference on Newegg, except you're getting no broad manufacturer support. Price out the same machine from Dell or HP and it comes out to $500-$1000 more than what Apple charges for the Mac Pro. Ever since they moved from G5 to Intel CPUs the Mac Pros have been among the cheapest Xeon workstations out there.

Price out a 24" iMac versus an XPS One and for the same price the iMac has a faster CPU (2.66 C2D vs 2.2ghz C2Q), a much faster GPU (9400M versus Intel integrated), double the HD space (640GB vs 320GB), and DDR3. On top of that it has a H-IPS panel that is otherwise found in the $1100 NEC 2490WUXi, one of the absolute best out there. The XPS One uses an inferior, cheaper MVA panel. That panel alone makes it a tremendous value, the fact that you also get faster components and more storage is icing on the cake. As for the 20" iMac, no comparison, it is faster, has a better GPU, has more HD storage, and is $150 cheaper than the 20" XPS One. And all of the iMacs can actually have their CPUs and GPUs upgraded, you're stuck with limited options and low quality displays on the XPS.

The Macbook Air is roughly half the price of and twice as fast as the competing Dell Adamo. Again, there is really no comparison.

What's wrong with Apple's desktop lineup is that there are no headless Core 2 or consumer level Core i7 machines with PCI-E expansion. The Mac Mini is garbage, overpriced because it uses expensive subnotebook components to cram into that tiny enclosure. But for the current machines Apple sells, they are extremely price and feature competitive with other PC manufacturers.

So yeah, calling total shenanigans on your argument.

I would pull up links to price compare with you but I cant at the moment because comcast makes great internet.

$2,500 Mac Pro. It's basically a Core-i7 920, 3gb of RAM, 640gb HDD, and a GTS120.

I just went to newegg threw together the following system:

Lian Li PC8, Corsair HX750, Asus Workstation Board (just to make you happy), i7 920, 6gb of OCZ DDR3 1600, 640gb Caviar Black, Plextor Blu-Ray drive and a ATi FirePro V5700 my total is @ $1,708 before rebates.

Those are all premium quality parts starting with the case all the way down to the video card.

The workstation board isn't necessarily needed neither is the FirePro. If you replace the workstation board with an Asus P6T and the FirePro with a GTS250 (both of which can work with OSX) you end up @ $1,250.

Now, I just built a faster computer than your $2,500 Mac. Tell me where does the other $800-$1,250 come into play?

Go ahead and add $320 to the cost of those pc's for Windows 7 Ultimate. It's still cheaper and it's still faster.

Add your $29 to the cost of your Mac Pro and it's still more expensive and it's still a slower pc.

I don't get your argument.

You're paying one hell of a premium for the apple name and OSX. I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way but that's my opinion.

As far as the MacBook Air goes I agree with you that the Adamo is overpriced but so is the Air so what the fuck does it matter. They're both horribly expensive and "niche" products.

 

[TheGeekFreek]

ugh, why does MS let people still suckle on 32-bit.. for the love of god let 32 bit die already.. its hit a brick wall.. years ago..

They need to do exactly what they did on Vistas release... cept this time only release a 64bit version and then have all 32bit OS's pulled from the shelf..

 

[TheRapture]

BS, check these UK prices out:



I wouldn't mind paying upto £100 for a Pro upgrade, but not that much. UK sucks as prices, that's what we get for having 2 types of each version of Windows, thanks EU!

Yeah no shit, because some stupid mf'er can't figure out how to download a different browser using IE, that whole deal was a red herring to get money for free.

Fuck the EU, and I mean that

/back to the subject matter....

 

[nilepez]

$29!!! Snow leopard is like a gift from god. I only have to pay $29 to upgrade the OS on my $3,000 computer that I paid way to much for in the first place just to get OSX.

As I understand it, the $29.00 price is only for those upgrade from Leopard. I'll let someone else, like Serpico, chime in with prices for those running older versions of OS X.

Congratulations to apple more of their stupid marketing bullshit.

How is it marketing BS? If you bought a mac, you wanted a Mac. If you can get the latest OS for 30 bucks (less if you can use a multi license pack), that's a great deal.

I'm don't use Macs. I'm a mac commercials tend to lower my opinion of the company, but this is a nice gesture from Apple, who typically sells their full OS at a relatively low price already (though you and I would probably agree that the OS price is partly subsidized by Apple's generally higher hardware prices.

Many people have been bitching that MS should give 7 to Vista users for free. Therefore, I don't think this is marketing BS, but it is smart marketing. The fanboys will trumpet this, as will the media (was that redundant ).

With that said, I think MS's prices are fine (especially the pre-order price, which they should extend by a month, IMO), but Apples Leopard->Snow is simply incredible.

The SL upgrade looks nice on paper but when you use your fucking head and factor in the premium you pay'd for the Mac in the first place what is really the better deal?

Sure, but Apple could have just said that Snow Leopard is our usual 130.00/license (family packs are less), but they didn't. Apple's prices are always low on upgrades, but this is way beyond those discounts.

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

Ultimate also contains this:

Bitlocker
Bitlocker to Go
AppLocker
Boot from VHD
Branche Cache
Federated Search
MUI Langauge packs
Subsystem for UNIX-based applications
Media Center

I don't see where it shows Media Center for any version, but AFAIK, home premium has Media Center. I'll have to read up on the search, cache and applocker.

Price out a 24" iMac versus an XPS One and for the same price the iMac has a faster CPU (2.66 C2D vs 2.2ghz C2Q), a much faster GPU (9400M versus Intel integrated), double the HD space (640GB vs 320GB), and DDR3. On top of that it has a H-IPS panel that is otherwise found in the $1100 NEC 2490WUXi, one of the absolute best out there. The XPS One uses an inferior, cheaper MVA panel. That panel alone makes it a

The NEC is an awesome monitor...though I've seen it for under 1000 on occasion. I have the Dell panel. It's OK, for what I use it for, but my mom bought the NEC at the same time I bought this, and I like hers better.

I'm not sure about the CPU part of the equation. If your app can utilize quad core, I suspect the C2Q is faster than the C2D. I'm not sure how relevant the GPU is to actual performance and frankly I'm shocked that an XPS system comes with intel graphics. Isn't that Dell's gaming line?

What is the price on these 2 systems? It doesn't seem possible a machine with a 24" H-IPS monitor is even close to the price of the Dell system.

 

[TheRapture]

<snip>
Now, I just built a faster computer than your $2,500 Mac. Tell me where does the other $800-$1,250 come into play?

Go ahead and add $320 to the cost of those pc's for Windows 7 Ultimate. It's still cheaper and it's still faster.

You're paying one hell of a premium for the apple name and OSX. I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way but that's my opinion.<snip>

BOOM!!! Headshot!!!

 

[Corbin]

Yes, you could reinstall Vista than upgrade. Or you could do like I said, make a backup after you do the upgrade then just restort back to that. Which when you do you will not have to worry about reinstalling Vista first, nor will you have to worry about the activation as if you make the backup after you activate it, as it will stay activated when you restore the backup.

I would back it up but atm I don't have another drive to put it on. I know they're cheap but I can barely afford to get the upgrade (if i choose to do so). Thanks for answering my question though!

 

[E7130]

I don't care if it's cheaper than Snow Leopard, that OS feels more like a mild update then a new OS. I love how Apple charges for service packs, besides, every release before was like $99.

 

[Serpico]

$2,500 Mac Pro. It's basically a Core-i7 920

This is where I skipped to the end.

This is the CPU in the baseline Mac Pro: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117182

Over a grand just for the CPU alone. Now throw in registered DIMMs, those aren't cheap either.

Again, don't believe me, great, just go over to Dell and spec out a Precision 5500 workstation to the same components as the Mac Pro (X5550 CPU, etc), I think you'll be surprised. Go to multiple cores and the price gap increases.

Like I said, it sucks that Apple doesn't offer a Core 2 Duo with PCI-E expansion, but to say that they are overcharging for the level of components they put in their current machines is ridiculous.

At $1500 the Macbook Air is among the least expensive ultraslim notebooks out there. WIth a DVD drive it is still cheaper and faster than the x300, forget the Adamo which is just ridiculous.

At least you skipped over the all-in-ones, I don't see how anybody can say an iMac is a poor value compared to what other PC manufacturers offer.

Listen, I like both Macs and PCs, I own and use them both, but the tired old argument on price is just that, old and tired.

And on topic I think the Windows 7 upgrade pricing, especially for preorders, is great, I don't see what everyone is crying about.

 

[Serpico]

As I understand it, the $29.00 price is only for those upgrade from Leopard. I'll let someone else, like Serpico, chime in with prices for those running older versions of OS X.

$29 is the price across the board, whether you are upgrading from Leopard or Tiger or whatever. The caveat is that they are completely dropping PPC support with 10.6, so if you are using an old G4 or G5 you are out of luck, Intel CPUs only.

 

[dot_Zen]

[..Snip ..]

I will admit I do myself do not use technet, even though we have an account here at work that we got a few weeks ago. But i have never once see it say anywhere that you get anything other than software that is meant to be used as an evaluation. I have never seen it stated that you get unlimited copies to deploy throughout your entire company. Now I will admit that for it can be worth the money for a person that supports these types of products. but that isn't what I have been argueeing with. My agruements have just been with your and the other people's posts, in that unless I have missed something for technet, you do not get unlimited copies of the software for free (other than cost of the site subscription) to deploy to an entire company network or a home network for use in the same manor as if you actually purchased the software.

What I posted above is the only thing I have ever seen listed for technet which goes against what you and others seem to be telling everyone. They can't save money by going and buying a technet subscription to get every single Microsoft program to run on their all their home machines in a legit manor.

If I am wrong, then I would greatly apperiate if you would point me to where it states that with our subscription I can upgrade my entire company's production network and save my work a lot of money compared to use buying Open License copies.

[..Snip ..]

I'll try and make this simple, and say it as many ways as I can think of to ease comprehension. Though my PoV is still very subjective, some inference must be used when determing one's position.

1. No one was argueing that an entire buisness or company can deploy unlimited keys for unlimited (or even 10) by simply purchasing and claiming a Technet/MSDN subscription.

2. Joe was simply suggesting that: any member of [H] ("Enthusiast", not nobbies) considering deploying multiple copies to multiple non-production enviornemtns -- i.e. (non-production / "Test") labs, homes, student training, et al -- that purchasing a Technet Direct subscription would be a wiser, more cost-conscious decision.

3. Pulled directly from the Technet Plus home page.

TechNet Plus
The essential resource for the IT Professional.
A TechNet Plus subscription includes premium resources to help you evaluate Microsoft technologies, plan deployments and support your current IT environment.

Evaluate.
Full-version software with no time limits.
Evaluate full-version commercial software products like Windows 7 Release Candidate without time or feature limits [..snip..]

Exclusive early access.
Get new software releases, service packs, patches, and beta software before they're available publicly available.

So, one only need to employ some common sense, or inference, to realize that: most members of [H] routinely particpate in early adpotion, hardware/software testing, bug reporting, beta programs, deployment schemes, and many forms of support for Microsoft products. Whatsmore, there are a number of members who utilize Microsoft software at work, or will be studying the material in the future.

All of these various circumstances are the exact people that fit under the umbrella of the quoted Microsoft verbage above, as well as Joe's use of 'Enthusiast'. Furthermore, Joe never implies that the 'Enthusiast' should violate the Technet EUL by deploying some Technet keys to both non-production AND production enviornments.

Those who are only planing on installing an OS to 1 machine or for production enviornments were NOT being addressed by Joe's statment.

The statment in question (for refrence):

For 10 copies/keys of pretty much everything Microsoft makes? For an enthusiast, it's more valuable than some damned new processor or video card, or an SSD even...

Enthusiast implies a serious (relative) intanglement into/with said object of enthusiasm; that would mean that more chances that not, a member of [H] will have some degree of professional connection to/with Microsoft products which would then justify, the ethical use of Technet Plus subscription, as well as, its price point.

FYI, Technet subscription keys do NOT time-bomb.

Oh, and I'm pretty po'd with the 'No pre-order deal for Ultimate Upgrade' customers. But, seeing as how MS (and the PC industry) estimates 5% of Windows 7 purchases to be via boxed-retail, I can hardly blame them.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Did the question get answered of whether or not you need to toss in a CD? Or is it just the product as installed.

Also as a matter of principle, will a CD-key for the upgrade work on the full-install version... I like others would rather just wipe everything associated with my old OS away... but give me my upgrade price.

 

[Serpico]

The NEC is an awesome monitor...though I've seen it for under 1000 on occasion. I have the Dell panel. It's OK, for what I use it for, but my mom bought the NEC at the same time I bought this, and I like hers better.

I got mine at the end of 2007 for $1200 (has multiple inputs so I use it as the main LCD for my PC and dual screen with my iMac, handy for Final Cut). Its nice that its dropped in price a bit. Either way, its hands down the best 24" panel I've used, no contest. That the 24" iMac looks marginally inferior than the NEC (I can barely tell the difference) and you also get a whole computer thrown in is pretty crazy.

[/QUOTE]I'm not sure about the CPU part of the equation. If your app can utilize quad core, I suspect the C2Q is faster than the C2D. I'm not sure how relevant the GPU is to actual performance and frankly I'm shocked that an XPS system comes with intel graphics. Isn't that Dell's gaming line?[/QUOTE]

Its debatable. I currently choose clock speed over the number of cores given that most individual applications are just getting on board with using two cores, let alone four. Its the main reason I went with an E8400 instead of a similarly priced Q6600 when I built my current PC. Fewer cores but in games I got significantly better performance than if I had gone with the slower clocked quad. It'll mean more to me once games and apps start individually using four cores. Hardcore multitasking (ie - gaming while compressing video while running Photoshop while Folding) just couldn't justify the drop in individual app performance for me to go with a Quad Core when I put together my current machine, and I certainly wasn't going to pay an outrageous amount to get a Quad Core for the same clock speed as my E8400.

GPUs should mean more to standard performance once GPU processing comes more into play. Its an integral part of OS 10.6 with OpenCL, which is why I think all Macs (even the shitty Mac Mini) have nvidia GPUs now. Intel integrated GPUs were completely dumped a while back. The advantage that games have with a proper GPU instead of Intel integrated needs no discussion. The iMac will smoke that Dell in Call Of Duty 4 or Team Fortress 2 or whatever. And yeah, I'd have expected more from the XPS as well, there isn't even an upgrade option to go to a better GPU.

Either way, prices on the CPUs that the iMac and XPS One (2.66ghz C2D and 2.2ghz C2Q) uses are roughly the same.

What is the price on these 2 systems? It doesn't seem possible a machine with a 24" H-IPS monitor is even close to the price of the Dell system.

Its possible, they are both $1500, same price. With the awesome H-IPS display, double the HD storage, higher clocked CPU, much faster GPU, DDR3, and great hardware/software integration on the machine that you'd expect from Apple, the 24" iMac is really a tremendous value compared to other all-in-ones out there.

 

[rhouck]

This is not new. It is the same way as Windows Vista. When they moved to the image based installer instead of the file based installer the only way you could do an upgrade is if you start the installer from inside of windows. Otherwise you are forced to do a clean install. In the event of using an upgrade version you had to have the OS already installed as it would not prompt you for a cd during the install, it would just tell you that a you do not meet the requirements for installing an upgrade verison.

This also prevents you from doing a repair install if you can't get the machine to boot.

Thanks! I never bothered with Vista so I didn't realize this. Still very annoying... but I'll just have to remember to ghost a copy to my WHS after installing the first time and keep it there just in case.

 

[Serpico]

Did the question get answered of whether or not you need to toss in a CD? Or is it just the product as installed.

Also as a matter of principle, will a CD-key for the upgrade work on the full-install version... I like others would rather just wipe everything associated with my old OS away... but give me my upgrade price.

You can do a clean install with the upgrade version, you just need your old key. You might need your old Vista or XP CD to verify, but that I do not know for sure. You can do a clean install though. In fact, you have to do a clean install if you're going from XP.

 

[Serpico]

ugh, why does MS let people still suckle on 32-bit.. for the love of god let 32 bit die already.. its hit a brick wall.. years ago..

They need to do exactly what they did on Vistas release... cept this time only release a 64bit version and then have all 32bit OS's pulled from the shelf..

I totally agree, let it die. If people want to stick with 32-bit then they can stick with Windows Vista, which is a perfectly stable and secure OS. Microsoft is great at keeping legacy support going but it also contributes to some of the greatest weaknesses in their operating systems. At some point people have to move on. I've been using 64-bit CPUs for five years now, and they've absolutely saturated the market at this point.

Its the same BS with game developers shipping games on multiple CDs for way longer than they should have, when 99% of people out there (thanks to the Steam hardware survey) had DVD drives. Dumb.

 

[Blown 89]

This is the CPU in the baseline Mac Pro: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117182.

According to Mac's own website that's not the baseline processor. The baseline is a 3500 series, the one you listed is the 5500 series in the premium model.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
"Quad-core: One 2.66GHz or 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processor"

 

[Serpico]

According to Mac's own website that's not the baseline processor. The baseline is a 3500 series, the one you listed is the 5500 series in the premium model.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
"Quad-core: One 2.66GHz or 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processor"

Thanks very much for the correction, I didn't catch that. Wow, that's a surprise, it doesn't explain the massive delta in price between the single and dual CPU configurations there, especially since the 8-core Mac Pro configurations actually do use the 5500 Xeon series. I just did another comparison and there is now a $100 difference with the 5500 series dual-CPU configurations between the Dell and the Mac.

Its a far cry from the prior Core 2 Xeon Harpertowns where there was a definite $500 savings by going with the Mac Pro. Because of that prior price delta and the cost of the current 8-core Mac Pro setups, not to mention that the 8-core setups use 5500 series Xeons, I assumed that the 4-core setup also used the 5500 series and not the 3500 series CPU.

Again, thanks for the correction.

 

[Blown 89]

Oh and FYI, I just pieced together their premium computer Mac Pro for $2800 before rebates on Newegg and I guarantee my parts are a hell of a lot better than what Apple is using. $2800 for my base with quality parts, $3300 for theirs with generic parts.

 

[Blown 89]

Thanks very much for the correction, I didn't catch that. Wow, that's a surprise, it doesn't explain the massive delta in price between the single and dual CPU configurations there, especially since the 8-core Mac Pro configurations actually do use the 5500 Xeon series. I just did another comparison and there is now a $100 difference with the 5500 series dual-CPU configurations between the Dell and the Mac.

Its a far cry from the prior Core 2 Xeon Harpertowns where there was a definite $500 savings by going with the Mac Pro. Because of that prior price delta and the cost of the current 8-core Mac Pro setups, not to mention that the 8-core setups use 5500 series Xeons, I assumed that the 4-core setup also used the 5500 series and not the 3500 series CPU.

Again, thanks for the correction.

I don't get it...the main page says a 3500 but the product page says a 5500 but every press release google came up with said the 3500 is correct.

And for the record, my priced build above is just to prove a point. I realize that with the Apple you're a) not putting it together and b) get support.

 

[Unexploded]

Can anyone confirm you'll be able to keep your existing install of XP *and* install the "upgrade" version of Windows 7 to a different partition?

I wouldn't mind saving a few bucks by getting the discounted upgrade vs oem, but don't want to find out it'll only install on the same partition as XP, or that it deactivates your old XP license. They've done weirder things. Thanks.

 

[Serpico]

Oh and FYI, I just pieced together their premium computer Mac Pro for $2800 before rebates on Newegg and I guarantee my parts are a hell of a lot better than what Apple is using. $2800 for my base with quality parts, $3300 for theirs with generic parts.

No idea what parts you're using but I can't argue with the price argument on the Xeon workstations now. The move from Core 2 to Core i7 has thrown Mac Pro pricing completely out of whack compared to before the upgrade. What was an amazing deal with the Core 2 Xeons has fallen back with the i7 Xeons, again, no argument. Now its a matter of seeing how long if time brings the prices back in line with the Harpertown price delta, we'll see.

I still stand by the argument that the iMacs are extremely price and performance competitive, being both faster and cheaper than what Dell offers, with a best-in-class display on top of that.

And going back to the root post that started this discussion, comparing an i7 920 with an i7 Xeon from a price standpoint is ridiculous. If you're going to do it than you have to do an apples-to-apples comparison (no pun intended).

 

[Serpico]

Can anyone confirm you'll be able to keep your existing install of XP *and* install the "upgrade" version of Windows 7 to a different partition?

I wouldn't mind saving a few bucks by getting the discounted upgrade vs oem, but don't want to find out it'll only install on the same partition as XP, or that it deactivates your old XP license. They've done weirder things. Thanks.

Why do you want to keep two partitions, backwards compatibility? Just curious.

 

[Exavior]

Will I need to find my old Vista Ultimate CD key? I'm missing a box of software from moving and I believe that disk was in it.

You will only need the key if you do not have the OS already installed. If you have Vista installed then you will not need the key.

I would back it up but atm I don't have another drive to put it on. I know they're cheap but I can barely afford to get the upgrade (if i choose to do so). Thanks for answering my question though!

You can burn the backup to DVDs. It might take you a few, but it might still be a better way to go.

I'll try and make this simple, and say it as many ways as I can think of to ease comprehension. Though my PoV is still very subjective, some inference must be used when determing one's position.

1. No one was argueing that an entire buisness or company can deploy unlimited keys for unlimited (or even 10) by simply purchasing and claiming a Technet/MSDN subscription.

2. Joe was simply suggesting that: any member of [H] ("Enthusiast", not nobbies) considering deploying multiple copies to multiple non-production enviornemtns -- i.e. (non-production / "Test") labs, homes, student training, et al -- that purchasing a Technet Direct subscription would be a wiser, more cost-conscious decision.

3. Pulled directly from the Technet Plus home page.


So, one only need to employ some common sense, or inference, to realize that: most members of [H] routinely particpate in early adpotion, hardware/software testing, bug reporting, beta programs, deployment schemes, and many forms of support for Microsoft products. Whatsmore, there are a number of members who utilize Microsoft software at work, or will be studying the material in the future.

All of these various circumstances are the exact people that fit under the umbrella of the quoted Microsoft verbage above, as well as Joe's use of 'Enthusiast'. Furthermore, Joe never implies that the 'Enthusiast' should violate the Technet EUL by deploying some Technet keys to both non-production AND production enviornments.

Those who are only planing on installing an OS to 1 machine or for production enviornments were NOT being addressed by Joe's statment.

The statment in question (for refrence):


Enthusiast implies a serious (relative) intanglement into/with said object of enthusiasm; that would mean that more chances that not, a member of [H] will have some degree of professional connection to/with Microsoft products which would then justify, the ethical use of Technet Plus subscription, as well as, its price point.

FYI, Technet subscription keys do NOT time-bomb.

Oh, and I'm pretty po'd with the 'No pre-order deal for Ultimate Upgrade' customers. But, seeing as how MS (and the PC industry) estimates 5% of Windows 7 purchases to be via boxed-retail, I can hardly blame them.

Actually yes, yes they were. That is what started the whole ball rolling. It was stated that you are stupid if you actually buy windows as you can pay for a technet subscription instead and install it and office and every other Microsoft product on every computer that you own for just a tad more than you are paying for a single copy of Ultimate. People on here seem to believe that you can just pay for a subscription and install it on an entire company network or your entire home network.

Joe even replied saying I was wrong about the software only being for evaluation purposed, which would imply that he too was stating that you could install it on an entire network.

What you said would be true, however I am the only one stating what you have just stated, everyone else is stating the exactly opposite. That is why i keep trying to tell them otherwise. I don't want people on here to be mislead into thinking that for $329 they can pay for some plan that gives them all the software for "free" for use on all their machines.

I fully agree that it is very usefull for people, if they actually can use it for what it is mean to be used for.

Did the question get answered of whether or not you need to toss in a CD? Or is it just the product as installed.

Also as a matter of principle, will a CD-key for the upgrade work on the full-install version... I like others would rather just wipe everything associated with my old OS away... but give me my upgrade price.

You can do a clean install with the upgrade version, you just need your old key. You might need your old Vista or XP CD to verify, but that I do not know for sure. You can do a clean install though. In fact, you have to do a clean install if you're going from XP.

Actually unless they changed it for windows 7 (which i don't think they did) you actually have to have the OS installed. It will not let you just enter in a CD key or just put in a disc during the install process. When I have tried to do a clean install from Vista it would not let me and made me install 2000 or XP first, then it would let me to do the ugprade. So I am pretty sure that 7 would be the same where it would require you actually have XP or Vista installed.

As for buying the upgrade copy and doing a full install. Yes, as Serpico pointed out that is what it does when you upgrade from XP. When it comes to Vista and 7, the only different between the Upgrade and Full in terms of installation is that Upgrade will check to see if you already have XP or Vista installed and Full will not. Other than that they are both the same and both allow you to do the upgrade as a clean install or as an inplace upgrade where you keep your data and programs. Actually with Vista that 1 DVD contained every single version of Vista and the key you enter determines how it acts and what it installs. If you put in a DVD that came with your home basic retail and put in a key for ulimate it would install ultimate. Same if you did that with the DVD from ultimate and gave it a key for basic, it would install basic. Since windows 7 ask you for the key at the end, that might actually have different DVDs for each version, not unless it will ask you upfront what version you want to install similar to how Vista does if you don't put a cd-key in when doing the install.