Windows 7 Is it Windows 7 worth the money?

[ugly charles]

Please, tell me your opinion.I have the RC and i'm more than charmed-it has new themes, i get more control of the user account control,Win7 starts up faster than Vista or XP,it has per-icon system tray customization.

And last but not least,all my number 1 programs as mil shield,picasa,avg anti-virus has been installed successfully on Win7 and interact with it pretty well.

 

[kbz1960]

I don't care if you guys flame each other to death but I wish that tblount would get rid of that bug, it drives me nuts LOL.

 

[tblount]

I don't care if you guys flame each other to death but I wish that tblount would get rid of that bug, it drives me nuts LOL.

It must have drove him nutz too... he went off the deep end for no apparent reason other than I disagreed with him.

 

[maddmaxx]

I agree kbz 1960. About the bug that is. Flaming one another on a forum intended to help people with Windows 7 issues is immature and childish. I thought that shit was for the 16 year olds. I stopped going to many forums for just that reason. I don't want to read your personal attacks on each other. If you must act like children for gods sake PM each other and leave the rest of us out of it. If I were Admin you would both be banned until you learn how to play nice . Jesus wept.

 

[strgzr]

And the alternative is?

I see a few

1. Windows 7 is very cool on many levels, for many reasons, pay the price, use it.

Just an aside... what is too much, never mind why is it too much. But, anyway, if you can make a better OS than 7 for less than Microsoft has in your basement... then you have alternative #2. Maybe you can market your product for $19.95 & everyone will reckon that's all an OS is worth. Personally, I would reckon it's an expenive process to design & build an OS... and get the IT Community to work together so that everything works together.

3. Since Win7 "isn't worth it" use the old, aging, unsupported technology of XP,rather than something better that has replaced / is going to replace it.

4. Let's not forget about the bane of computing, Vista. If & or since Win7 is overpriced then, stay w/ what you love & praise (so much).

People will fork out say $70 for ONE (occasionally used) video game; but an entire whiz-bang (daily use) OS for thier office or whole family is too expensive... ummm, yeah, ok... follow the logic

Of course, why should an OS be unique... don't people whinge that everything is too dear these days?

Finally, just a possibility I'll suggest (bit like vehicle theft insurance rates)an OS might cost heaps less if not the quantity of global software piracy.

Thanks 4 listening

Cheers,
Drew

You forgot #5. Just borrow it forever!
And your insurance analogy is a bit off. Are you suggesting that MS charges us consumers "heaps" more so they don't feel the pinch from piracy? If I thought that were true I'd become a Buccaneer today! I believe that these high prices will have the effect that people who ordinarily would not have thought to do software piracy will start thinking about it. Like me!

 

[djarrum]

Just an aside... what is too much,

$319 for the useful version is too much

then you have alternative #2. Maybe you can market your product for $19.95 & everyone will reckon that's all an OS is worth.

Personally, I would pay more than $19.95, but hey if you're gonna throw in a set of steak knifes if I buy before the end of the commercial. I take it operators are standing buy? they speak English right?

Personally, I would reckon it's an expenive process to design & build an OS... and get the IT Community to work together so that everything works together.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is an enormous IT community that likely outnumbers Microsoft Developers exponentially that develop a pretty whiz-bang OS for free.

Since Win7 \"isn't worth it\" use the old, aging, unsupported technology of XP,rather than something better that has replaced / is going to replace it.

Here's an idea, since XP is unsupported by Microsoft anymore, how about they release the source code so the open source community can support it for them....

Let's not forget about the bane of computing, Vista. If & or since Win7 is overpriced then, stay w/ what you love & praise (so much).

I think this is the source of the anger surrounding Windows 7's price. People payed through the nose for Vista because it could have been cool, and now Microsoft says to us, "Hey guess what, we fixed it. come get your Windows 7! Wait, that will be $319!" wait what for how much?

People will fork out say $70 for ONE (occasionally used) video game; but an entire whiz-bang (daily use) OS for thier office or whole family is too expensive... ummm, yeah, ok... follow the logic

Not only that, some people pay a monthly fee to continue to play that game, what's your point? How about this, Some people pay $1000 plus for a PC and have no intention of using the copy of windows that's installed on it. Once they get it home they're gonna wipe it clean and install Linux, but these people are still giving money to Microsoft. how is that right, fair or logical?

Finally, just a possibility I'll suggest (bit like vehicle theft insurance rates)an OS might cost heaps less if not the quantity of global software piracy.

So what you are suggesting is that Microsoft believes that for every legitimate purchase of Windows, there is a component of the price charged to the legitimate buyer that is intended to make Microsoft whole for the amount of money they estimate they would have gotten if every copy of windows in use where legit. It's possible, but unlikely. This is more like some fat balled guy who sits in a corner office in Redmond barely big enough to contain his ego says to a marketing rep, "Find out how much money the american people can afford to pay and charge them %10 more than that. Lets keep in mind, that this guy expects to get a multi million dollar bonus at the end of the year. Oh wait I think I secretly divulged where the money goes that you spent on Windows 7.

Here are some historical references.

"400 million copies were in use in January 2006, according to an estimate in that month by an IDC analyst." That quote was for Windows XP machines in January of 2006. It's probably safe to say that in five years, there will be at least that amount of machines running 7.

that means at it's current price 400 million copies of windows 7 means gross product sales amounting to $127,996,000,000. Wow! Yes I know this isn't a very scientific way to come about this figure, but if gross product sales hit the 12 digit number range or at least come close, Piracy isn't hurting them. it's just making it harder for Microsoft execs to compare their super yachts with the ones owned by some prince in Saudi Arabia. Not much sympathy here.

Now if only we could find a way to get Linux running on a good portion of those machines! Heres what I think is a fair price for windows 7..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116762

 

[kbz1960]

Now if only we could find a way to get Linux running on a good portion of those machines!

That shouldn't be so hard, make it easy to use and have programs that can do exactly what windows programs can do. I'm not talking productivity but more on the line of instant messengers where you can have all that cute stuff that people like along the line of winks in msn messenger, audibles in yahoo etc.

That's what a lot of ordinary users want. I have shown some people linux and they say I know I can IM but I want my winks!

 

[djarrum]

That shouldn't be so hard, make it easy to use and have programs that can do exactly what windows programs can do. I'm not talking productivity but more on the line of instant messengers where you can have all that cute stuff that people like along the line of winks in msn messenger, audibles in yahoo etc.

That's what a lot of ordinary users want. I have shown some people linux and they say I know I can IM but I want my winks!

As I asked before, Please find something that doesn't have a Linux equivalent or wont run on wine. Before you start naming every video game you can think of, I know, direct x this and direct x that. most games wont work even with wine. An interesting aside however, the most popular online game runs exceptionally well on Linux. The only reason Blizzard discontinued support for it's Linux client was because Microsoft threatened to take away their "Windows compatibility logo" if they offered a Linux platform.

And these days Linux is pretty easy to use. What gets people confused when working with Linux is the fact that Linux is still and always has been a network/server OS and as such user access control is central to the OS. Something that vista users will not like. However, the folks at canonical have done a great job bringing Linux to the masses by simplifying it enough that every day people can install it, and if they need to learn how to do something, hop on a forum like this one and get a prompt answer, no pun intended.

If IMing is what really matters to you, you could have just stuck with your cell phone, you didn't need a whole computer... oh wait, most of those cell phones run a Linux OS.

 

[tblount]

$319 for the useful version is too much

1. You don't have to pay that much... you can run windows 7 for 4 months in evaluation mode.. by then if you haven't found a better price you probably don't know about Google.

2. If you wanna dance (legally) You got to pay the fiddler.

So what you are suggesting is that Microsoft believes that for every legitimate purchase of Windows, there is a component of the price charged to the legitimate buyer that is intended to make Microsoft whole for the amount of money they estimate they would have gotten if every copy of windows in use where legit.

Microsoft does't decide the price... the market place does. If Win 7 didn't sell at $200 they would have to lower the price. As far as thieft goes, Microsoft is probably aware that the people who pirate are the people who wouldn't buy their product anyway... so that's pretty much irrelevant. Since pirates aren't taking a hard product like a thief swiping toothpaste from Walmart, not only is it no cost to Microsoft, you would have to prove that pirates would purchase the product if they couldn't get it for free. That's never been proven.

"400 million copies were in use in January 2006, according to an estimate in that month by an IDC analyst." That quote was for Windows XP machines in January of 2006. It's probably safe to say that in five years, there will be at least that amount of machines running 7.

that means at it's current price 400 million copies of windows 7 means gross product sales amounting to $127,996,000,000. Wow! Yes I know this isn't a very scientific way to come about this figure, but if gross product sales hit the 12 digit number range or at least come close, Piracy isn't hurting them. it's just making it harder for Microsoft execs to compare their super yachts with the ones owned by some prince in Saudi Arabia. Not much sympathy here.

Unlike Wall Street executives that have have found so many ways to steal money from taxpayers by making "donations" to corrupt politicians .... you do have a choice when it comes to Microsoft... you can vote purely by your dollars. Do you really care if people want to vote with their dollard to watch a Pro Athlete, or a Musician or an Actor? I don't. A business that developes and markets a product that people want is no different.

The ONLY people who can really complain about Microsoft are the hundreds of programmers who developed good ideas and software that Microsoft swiped.... like Quaterdeck, WordPerfect, Eudora, Netscape, Lotus 123, Norton and McAfee, to name a few of the most obvious.

 

[tblount]

How about this, Some people pay $1000 plus for a PC and have no intention of using the copy of windows that's installed on it. Once they get it home they're gonna wipe it clean and install Linux, but these people are still giving money to Microsoft. how is that right, fair or logical?

hahaha.... people who run Linux build their own machines. Not one will buy a computer with Windows on it unless it's a super deal where whatever happens to be installed is irrelevant.

 

[djarrum]

hahaha.... people who run Linux build their own machines. Not one will buy a computer with Windows on it unless it's a super deal where whatever happens to be installed is irrelevant.

For the most part, you are correct. What I ultimately want to see is the chain broken that binds the major PC brands to Microsoft. Just like the iPhone, if you want one, you gotta have At&t. I don't like At&t, I seem to be fond of Verizon for my purposes and budget. But because of exclusivity deals, I cant have an iPhone. this really isn't a big deal to me, because I don't need or want one. I'me sure there are people who would love to have one but wont switch to At&t. If somehow we could get rid of these exclusive back room deals, there would be more competition, and competition is the backbone of a capitalist economy.

I think there should be legal restrictions put in place under US antitrust law to forbid these kind of exclusive deals. If you sell a device that requires another product or service to function the way a cell phone requires a service provider and a computer requires and OS, you must make the customer aware if there are multiple products or services to support the opperation of the device or product.

Now, I will grant one thing however. If Microsoft had a PC product line they shouldn't be required to make the buyer aware that a competitors Software product will also operate the PC. If At&t developed the iPhone as it's own product, they should be able to limit it to use only on their network. Apple computers would not have to tell their customers that they can run windows on their machines because Mac OS is a product of Apple computer.

I would be satisfied if PC manufacturers where required to place a small statement conspicuously located on the product packaging stating that while their product is regularly sold with a Microsoft OS installed, the buyer has the choice to buy the PC without that product and also not be charged for it as well.

Now, do I honestly think that the majority will walk into Best Buy and demand to buy that shiny new PC with a blank hard drive? No. Most will not. But at least they would have the option.

My opinion is that Windows 7 is not worth the price tag. My problem is that Microsoft uses shady long standing business tactics to make people believe that there is no choice other than buying a Mac. When people don't have a choice, or believe they have no choice as a direct result of Microsoft's business practices, Microsoft is then a monopoly and should be sanctioned. Once again, my opinion.

 

[tblount]

For the most part, you are correct.

We have rules here.. when you say I am correct you do it this way....

you are correct

What I ultimately want to see is the chain broken that binds the major PC brands to Microsoft.

Well Dwayne Allman said it best in "Dreams"

Climb down off the hilltop Babe Get back in the race.

If you want to break the chain.. get into the race.

I think there should be legal restrictions put in place under US antitrust law to forbid these kind of exclusive deals. If you sell a device that requires another product or service to function the way a cell phone requires a service provider and a computer requires and OS, you must make the customer aware if there are multiple products or services to support the operation of the device or product.

The laws are on the books.... they just aren't enforced. And since 911 they all argue that it's a matter of national security because we don't want to be depend on China or some country that wants to destroy us... for our gadgets, gizmos and port security and military equipment.

I would be satisfied if PC manufacturers where required to place a small statement conspicuously located on the product packaging stating that while their product is regularly sold with a Microsoft OS installed, the buyer has the choice to buy the PC without that product and also not be charged for it as well.

You mean like on the side of cigarette packages? We see how well that works.

My opinion is that Windows 7 is not worth the price tag. My problem is that Microsoft uses shady long standing business tactics to make people believe that there is no choice other than buying a Mac..

Microsof has almost NOTHING to do with my decision to upgrade to windows 7.... it got to the point that NONE of the software I wanted to run would work on Windows ME.

 

[ickymay]

I'm not totally sure if it's healthy but windows get's the job like a large supermarket, and i know linux can get a similar quality job done but I have to walk 3 miles round my local town going from the butchers to the chemists to the fishmonger to the fruit store to the bakers with some risk of not getting full choice and each shop has different standards

I choose windows with some imperfections and it's higher price as it get's the job done as a one stop shop

 

[djarrum]

Windows ME? wasn't that the epic failure that made even vista look like a masterpiece of software engineering?

You mean like on the side of cigarette packages? We see how well that works.

Hard to compare the two products as one is universally known to kill you, though perhaps they aren't too dissimilar, Vista made me want to slit my wrists.

Microsof has almost NOTHING to do with my decision to upgrade to windows 7.... it got to the point that NONE of the software I wanted to run would work on Windows ME.

For you, I can see where it could be worth the money if you are upgrading from ME. At least in your case, you didn't get duped into paying for Vista only to be asked to pay for largely the same features again with Windows 7, the most expensive Service pack in the history of windows.

I can see this being fair.

Owners of a vista license receive the windows 7 service pack free of charge as compensation for the defective product they already own.

Windows XP users pay the upgrade price

While owners of earlier Microsoft failures (oops.. products) pay full price.

I'm not totally sure if it's healthy but windows get's the job like a large supermarket and i know linux can get a similar quality job done but I have to walk 3 miles round my local town going from the butchers to the chemists to the fishmonger to the fruit store to the bakers with some risk of not getting full choice and each shop has different standards

I choose windows with some imperfections and it's higher price as it get's the job done as a one stop shop

The difference is really that the internet makes going around the corner to the butcher shop from the fish market as simple as one click. Users of Canonical Linux distributions get a nice little repository that has almost every feature and application that's a simple command line away. For instance, I love emerald and every time I have to install a new distro, one of the first things I enter is "Sudo apt-get install emerald Compizconfig-settings-manager." Bang, done.

But the thing that makes Linux "Nerdy," is that for the most part it still requires the use of the terminal console. Well Here's something most people don't realize, The terminal console is exponentially more powerful than point and click. It's so powerful, windows still has one. The real issue is that since DOS was replaced by windows, the majority of PC users wouldn't even know how to show the contents of a folder much less enter a command that can potentially replace hundreds of mouse clicks.

Linux will get to a point where it's usability is just as easy as windows, but it's following a different evolutionary path. You see Windows wanted to evolve as a user friendly os at the expense of everything that was truly important, functionality, capability and stability. Linux is evolving in a far less compromising fashion. the lin-azis as they're called are the ones keeping it from devolving from a functional, stable, and effective masterpiece of software engineering to what windows has become, just so people can ooh and ah over retarded things like winks.

Food for thought, the majority of meaningful work/research is done on *nix platforms. The windows machines for the most part are playing games, checking e-mail/Myspace, and surfing porn sites. Windows is tasked with keeping Intel, AMD, and other hardware manufacturers generating money by producing and selling new things. Linux on the other hand is perfectly happy on a 15 year old machine that couldn't even think of running windows 7. And Linux could probably get some serious work done on it. I remember running early XWindows implementations on a 486DX4-100. that machine had a tough time running windows 3.1 but it oozed performance with Linux.

More food for thought: Link Removed

 

[ickymay]

The difference is really that the internet makes going around the corner to the butcher shop from the fish market as simple as one click. Users of Canonical Linux distributions get a nice little repository that has almost every feature and application that's a simple command line away. For instance, I love emerald and every time I have to install a new distro, one of the first things I enter is "Sudo apt-get install emerald Compizconfig-settings-manager." Bang, done.

well no you've twisted my analogy to suit your argument here, maybe my analogy failed but I meant the equivalent effort comparison

I meant that Linux takes a high level of specific understanding to use whereas using windows can be done comparatively brainlessly and often is used in such a way but it is also capable of being used all the way up to a high level of production with yet again very little actual understanding of how to use the system, this saves companies large amounts of money in training so for the majority windows 7 is worth it, and for me as an end user I find it worth it

I don't want to have to use terms like "Sudo apt-get" unless I am programming website design with html or using mysql on dynamic databases, this is where the appeal of linux stops and windows excels using a friendly GUI and common or garden language to achieve things

It's a balance where windows is the closest at the moment to getting it right compared to any other operating system

 

[djarrum]

I don't want to have to use terms like "Sudo apt-get" unless I am programming website design with html or using mysql on dynamic databases, this is where the appeal of linux stops and windows excels using a friendly GUI and common or garden language to achieve things.

Well, if that is your preferred method, There is an application built into Ubuntu distributions that has each and every application in the repository listed in a GUI fashion with a check box next to it. When you select an application by checking the box, it will automatically select any dependencies from the repository. when you hit the apply button, it will begin downloading. While it's downloading, you can opt to see a console view of what the program is doing, but I wouldn't look to closely at that because in that view you'll see it start with "sudo apt-get ..."

It's a balance where windows is the closest at the moment to getting it right compared to any other operating system

If you call strong arming the manufacturers of PC peripherals to make it almost impossible for them to offer driver/technical support for any other PC operating system but windows "getting it right."

 

[ickymay]

If you call strong arming the manufacturers of PC peripherals to make it almost impossible for them to offer driver/technical support for any other PC operating system but windows "getting it right."

no this is where Microsoft let themselves down and are in fact a company built very much on taking other peoples half developed ideas and claiming them as their own , I wasn't however talking about the ethics and practices of Microsoft but simply about whether i felt windows 7 is worth it and I still feel it is.

I guess you don't ??

 

[strgzr]

no this is where Microsoft let themselves down and are in fact a company built very much on taking other peoples half developed ideas and claiming them as their own , I wasn't however talking about the ethics and practices of Microsoft but simply about whether i felt windows 7 is worth it and I still feel it is.

I guess you don't ??

Well, I will agree it is worth money. It is the amount that I have trouble with!

 

[djarrum]

no this is where Microsoft let themselves down and are in fact a company built very much on taking other peoples half developed ideas and claiming them as their own , I wasn't however talking about the ethics and practices of Microsoft but simply about whether i felt windows 7 is worth it and I still feel it is.

I guess you don't ??

Personally I'll let the civil courts sort out who profited from someone else's intellectual property. The most important issue to me is that Microsoft creates an illusion that they are the only show in town by not allowing an alternative to their product gain traction in the form of third party product support.

For example, I start a new company manufacturing a new brand of PC printer. My development team ports a windows, Mac and Linux driver for my devices. I then get a call from Microsoft stating that if I continue to support Linux, they will require me to take windows compatibility logo off my product, and more importantly, my drivers. It may seem on the surface to be superficial, but that windows compatibility logo not only gives you a leg up when advertising your product, without it, a user will get a window disclosing that my device does not meet Microsoft's windows compatibility standards. Why? solely because I offered support for Linux. Additionally, without that the windows OS will not allow my users to update the driver from Microsoft's repository, they will have to go to my support channels and get the new driver.

I do have to agree with Strgzr, their product is worth money, Microsoft is a business after all. Their developers are career people, not weekend hobbyist like a good portion of the open source community. But when they sell you a defective product (Vista) then require you to pay for it's replacement that's is made up of largely the same features, I have to call bull sh!t.

Windows 7 should have been mailed to every Vista license owner free of charge with a personaly signed appology letter from their president. XP users should be permitted to purchase the product at upgrade price. Full version, non upgrade licenses should go for about what the OEM price is.

 

[maddmaxx]

Ease of use is the key here. I know older people who wouldn't even own a computer if all there was available for an OS was Linux. Now I'm not saying that it's a bad OS, just not user friendly. To get more people involved with technology it has to be easy to use. Just because something is easy for some folks it doesn't mean that it's easy for all. I know a senior citizen who doesn't have a cell phone because he can't figure out how to use it. I thought he was a little stupid but then i realized he's unfamiliar with the layout and functionality. If it had a rotary dial he'd be using one. As I stated before I got my upgrade copy for $49.99 as a pre-order from New Egg which definately makes it worth the price. I think that if you will plunk down $40 or $50 for a game you can afford $100 for a new OS. Personally I think that $75 or $80 would be fair price for an OS not $120 or more. I mean have you seen the price for Ultimate?

 

[Tepid]

I have said it several times before but will re-iterate.......

You get what you pay for......

Linux = Free ,,,, but really,, it isn't that user friendly, can be very confusing on the back end to try and fix things. Yes, believe it or not, linux and it's software can break.

Windows = Not cheap, but very user friendly,,, most capable people can be walked through on a forum like this to fix, most times the most complicated issues.

Mac OSX = Cheap OS, extremely over priced hardware, user friendly, can still break, not many websites devoted to helping fix issues. Just keep in mind,,, if Microsoft sold the hardware to run Windows, you would be paying Apple prices. You are still paying as much (maybe more) for OSx as you would windows 7 ultimate, you just don't see the cost of the OS because it is figured into the price of the hardware. Every iteration of OSX could be seen as a major service pack (ie. XP Sp2 and SP3) in Windows, which you pay for from Apple and is free from Windows.

So,, my opinion is,,,,, of the options you have,,, Windows is the better choice for overall usability, functionality, compatibility, more choices in everything (ie. software and hardware).