You're right, I didn't consider that Home Edition is $100 less. However, additional licences are still to pricey.
Some say XP Pro just gives you domain control while others say it gives you better security. Whats the deal?
Actually, I run XP Pro on every PC, but I don't use any of XP Pro's features such as Network Domains, Encryption and Policy Editor. I'm now wondering why the hell I spent more money on features I don't use. Oh, well...
It kinda makes me feel too "home user" if I run Home Edition. I consider myself a Power User, wich is why I chose XP Pro....
It kinda makes me feel too "home user" if I run Home Edition. I consider myself a Power User, wich is why I chose XP Pro....
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Do you know how many people are on the Windows development team? Then add on top of their salaries those working in IE, WMP, etc and then the QA people's salaries and all of the hardware they build and test on. Without having any idea how much they spend on development every year it's a little hard to decide on a price, don't you think?
I could accept that statement if you wer referring to specialized software applications, such as development tools and servers. However, considering that 90% of the computers worlwide run Windows, it would make sense that they lower the prices. By doing so, a lot more people would buy legit copies instead of buying pirated copies.
Allright, allright... this is starting to get off topic and pretty much useless. I was just expressing my opinion about MS Windows prices, and how expensive are here in Argentina.
No, I haven't written an OS before, I'm a graphics designer/web developer.
BTW, I'm sure MS has a good reason to charge $280 for XP Pro, it's just that I don't really think it should be that much. Lowering the price $100 would make it more accesible and more people would actually buy it, IMHO.
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
FYI, you also get longer support with Pro.
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
Mainstream support for WinXP Home ends at the end of 2006 and has no Extended phase because it's not a business product. XP Pro, however, enters Extended phase at that time, and if I have my facts straight, you will be able to get security updates via Windows Update through the end of 2008 (at least), and then have another three years of self-support after that (ie, download a patch and apply it yourself).
Hurricane Andrew
Golden Member
- Nov 28, 2004
- 1,613
- 0
- 76
I run XP Pro at home becuase we had some extra licenses work, and since I'm the entire IT dept.... well, you figure it out....
What does slipstreaming mean? Does that mean you can take a Windows XP Pro or Home CD and the SP2 CD and combine them on a CD for a fresh install?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Everything is overpriced in some fashion, but until you've actually written some software and had to deal with all of the odd things other people will do with it, you're in no position to judge. Even small things I've done for work, I would show them to another guy here and he would start inputting data and sh!t that I never thought of and causing the program to do all kinds of weird things and with an OS it's even worse.
RVN
Golden Member
- Dec 1, 2000
- 1,154
- 1
- 81
XP costs alot because someone has to pay to employ the cowboys and indians that staff the telephone activation center that represent every language in the world ...so that they can self-admittingly, crack down on the casual piracy of individuals with the technology of product activation whereas they only allude to the measures that they have in place to deter and punish commercial piracy, which is what they claim they're really after. It's kind of like the bully that only picks on the kids that are smaller than he is through his frustration in being intimidated by those that are larger ie. corporations. It's almost an act of frustration. They're trying to outlaw imaging software next ...it's the one thing they can't control.
The OEM licensed copy is to be used on one and one computer and can't be transferred to another machine, even at the demise or discontinuance of the original computer that it was installed on. The retail licensed copy can be moved to another box. Hence, a bigger price tag.
It's ludicrous to soften up Pro and have a "lite" Home version to make the price friendlier for "home" users and incorporate the archaic "restore" feature instead of full blown built-in imaging software backup.
The OEM licensed copy is to be used on one and one computer and can't be transferred to another machine, even at the demise or discontinuance of the original computer that it was installed on. The retail licensed copy can be moved to another box. Hence, a bigger price tag.
It's ludicrous to soften up Pro and have a "lite" Home version to make the price friendlier for "home" users and incorporate the archaic "restore" feature instead of full blown built-in imaging software backup.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,766
- 615
- 126
Don't tell me MS is hurting for dough and 'just getting by' because I'm just not buying it. And it just plain doesn't make any sense. For all intents and purposes, MS has no real competitors for what it does. They can effectively charge whatever they want (within some measure of reason). I'm sure its very hard to make an operating system, and I'm also equally sure I cannot do it. But that doesn't mean I as a consumer don't have a right to comment on what is or isn't a fair price on a produce that I am paying for. By that logic, MS could start charging everyone $10,000 for a copy of windows XP tomorrow and I'd have 'no right to judge'.
The market decides a fair price, unless you're in a position of monoply.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Where did I say anything remotely close to that? Since when does the worth of a company determine how much they should charge for their products?
Exactly and they only charge slightly more than Apple.
That's a bad example because there's already a precedent set for the pricing so they would have to justify the jump in price.
They would also run the risk of losing more existing customers to the competition (Linux, Macintosh, etc.). Even if the price jumped to $1000 they would run the risk of losing a lot of repeat business in the home markets.
On one hand I can see how some people would think that the cost of the OS is really high (Zucarita9000 I'm going to use you as an example). In some foreign markets the USD is a lot more valuable than others and this can make it much harder for people in countries such as yours to buy at our prices.
But on the other hand:
October 2001 I buy XP Pro at full retail price ($300 USD) and use it through 2006 (The current anticipated release time for Longhorn). Using this example I'm paying $5/month over a 5 year period to use Windows XP; during that time I've received tons of additional development work from Microsoft in keeping the OS up-to-date and secure such as Service Pack 2. If I consider how much time I spend using Windows (lets say a very conservative example of 60 hours a week or 240 hours a month) it breaks down to my paying a little over $.02 an hour to use the software. And this is all figuring full retail price. To add to it this number seems even smaller by comparison when I consider how much I've spent (and will continue to spend) on hardware during the same period of time.
BTW were I running OS X over that time period I could have easily spent ~$450 (10.0 @ $150 - 10.1 @ $100 - 10.2 @ $100 - 10.3 @ $100).
Not that I'm saying I agree or disagree with the current pricing scheme; but it seems to me that considering how much time I spend "using" Windows $150 (OEM license) over even a 2 year period (now till a little while after Longhorn's release) doesn?t seem like that much all things considered.
I agree that the "family pack" licensing idea is a great idea. I'm not sure why Microsoft hasn?t done this (or if they've considered it) but I plan on taking this to some of my Windows contacts @ Microsoft. Can anyone please give me information they have on existing products like this (somebody mentioned Apple has something similar for OS X). I'm going to assume they've already considered this, but it would be nice to get an answer for sure.
-Erik
EDIT: just found the Family Pack on Apple's site.
Add me to the list of people that think "family packs" or the like is a fantastic idea. It would be a nice 'goodwill' gesture on Microsoft's part. Okay, so instead of making 100 gazillion dollars a year in profit, maybe they'd only make 80 gazillion dollars a year. So what?!!!!! Too bad!!! Why not do something nice for less fortunate people who have a hard time affording software, even if YES, it means they'd make less? When is enough money enough money?
Three hundred dollars for a full, retail version of XP Pro? That's insane, and it's profiteering. If they had more competition, they would not be able to charge half that -- and they'd still be making gazillions of dollars a year and living like kings. As one of the guys on here has in his sig, "Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should."
Believe it or not, I actually have a generally favorable opinion of Microsoft for the most part. There are many things I like about their products, but this particular aspect isn't one of them. C'mon, guys -- lower the prices for families with more than one computer (I mean lower them more than a slightly discounted "license only" option), create some goodwill, and reap the benefits.
Three hundred dollars for a full, retail version of XP Pro? That's insane, and it's profiteering. If they had more competition, they would not be able to charge half that -- and they'd still be making gazillions of dollars a year and living like kings. As one of the guys on here has in his sig, "Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should."
Believe it or not, I actually have a generally favorable opinion of Microsoft for the most part. There are many things I like about their products, but this particular aspect isn't one of them. C'mon, guys -- lower the prices for families with more than one computer (I mean lower them more than a slightly discounted "license only" option), create some goodwill, and reap the benefits.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,766
- 615
- 126
Its implied in your first post that I have no idea what is costs to make an operating system and therefore, have no right to say what they are worth. I'm just saying that obviously microsoft could afford to sell the software for less (not saying that they should or will...MS is smart, they probably chose this price point to maximize profits, but they definately could lower the price if they wanted).
To answer your second question: since forever. The more popular brand uses its clout and brand name to sell a product that is hardly any different from the competition for more in a variety of markets. Is Pepsi really three times better than the cola you can get for $0.25 a can? Competition has never been 'the better product always wins' at any point in recent history. Its really the better marketed product that wins, unless that product is really, really terrible.
Again, MS did not get where is today by being stupid. They charge at the price point that gets max profits. Its smart business. But the max profit point isn't always the 'fair price' point. Without any real competitors (Linux does not threaten MS market share, Apple barely does at this point) they are in fact free to eek the price up a bit and still sell the same number of units.
It was an intentionally bad example. MS would never charge that because it would be company suicide. It would make Apple and Linux real competitors overnight. But it was you, not I, who said that without having been involved in the production of an OS that I did not have the right to judge the pricing.
A loaf of bread is worth a few dollars, but if I were starving to death and you were the only guy with bread you could charge me $50 for the loaf. And I'd pay for it, but I have no choice. It doesn't mean thats what a fair price on the bread is though. Its the market price.
Ultimately, the price is determined by how bad your customers need something. I was just commenting that I felt the software was worth $100, which I thought would be fair for what it is and how long its really useful. I don't expect the price to drop though, if I were MS I'd probably be charging the same thing.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
No doubt they coudl afford it, but for how long? How long should they sell something at a loss before they are allowed to up the price?
The difference being that you can by Faygo Cola and not have any problems drinking it, but if you don't buy Windows you won't be able to run any Windows program you already own, etc. And I don't really like Pepsi anyway, it's too sweet, but yes it's generally better than the off-brands.
And whether we like it or not that's one of the benefits of being a market leader, especially one with such a large margin. If you don't like it, use something else, if enough people start to do that then MS will have to reevaluate their position and methods.
And I believe you still don't and neither do I.
But in this case you do have a choice and if enough people make a choice that doesn't include MS, they will have no choice but to change their products and pricing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter