Wed Sep 6, 2006 6:46AM EDT
See Comments (132)
Much has been said about how ungodly expensive Windows Vista is going to be, but what is it really worth? While software is rarely priced based on what it actually does, I figured I'd take a unique approach toward figuring out the real value of Vista, with a feature-by-feature analysis of how much the upgrades are worth to the user. Are there other ways to get the same features? How much do alternatives cost? Here's my blow by blow analysis of Vista's new features and what they're really worth:
The final tally: $133.
Ironically, that sounds just about right. I mean, I'd totally pay $133 for Vista. I might even pay $199 so Microsoft could have $66 in mad money or to give its programmers a little vacation. Unfortunately, to get all of these features, you'll need to fork over $400 for Vista Ultimate Edition, a full three times what the OS is really worth. Better news: The upgrade is $260 (not $360 as previously reported), which puts us a little more in the ballpark, but still twice what it's really worth.
But that's just my analysis. You'll probably put your own values on certain core features of Vista that are different than mine. I'm sure parental controls are worth more to some, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if some of you value all of these upgrades at zero.
So what's your Vista value? Post it in the comments and let's see what it's really worth to you!
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
I did my own look at all of Vista's new features, and all I have to say to Microsoft is: "You want me to pay $400 for what I could already get for XP or another OS in either standard features or free plug-in software?"
Yes, I will pay $260.00 for the Mid price point Vista, and a second copy for the wife. I may just wait till vista sp1 comes out.
I've had a Mac for years and years, and have skipped upgrades to the OS when I didn't think they were worth the cost. Sounds like a lot of people on the Windows side of the house (including my wife) will be doing the same thing.
I don't understand why you said that "nearly every website on earth looks broken when rendered by IE7". Have you tried IE7 Release Candidate 1? I never saw any broken web pages, even with the Beta versions. Maybe you need to try it again before you bad mouth it. It could be the "expert", not the "product".
If the cost of upgrading to Vista were limited to $150 I would consider purchasing it, but chances are extremely high that most people, especially those upgrading, will be spending above the $260 upgrade of Vista on also upgrading any one or more of the following: Memory, Video card, Hard drive, Processor, or a whole new computer.
People you have to remember you all said the same thing about Windows XP and i bet almost all of you have that. So its pretty easy to say that almost evryone will get this.
Taficke, do you have any idea what you're talking about? The majority of the Windows community was thrilled to jump onto the XP bus, because look at what Microsoft had previously released: Windows Me, which is notoriously buggy. There was a big difference between previous versions and XP...and it cost a lot less to make the jump. Vista is the opposite...it's more expensive for virtually nothing of value.
Truth is that the OS may be over priced but 2 things abound: 1. MS has to recoup years of programming R&D 2. In the end, 3rd party pgms will adapt to Vista and so will the public
More incentive to go Apple if you ask me!
I guess I will have to buy one, I make my living making web sites, and yes I must agree with Chris IE7 does have problems, the main cause is not with IE7 its with IE6, CSS coders like me have a difficult time adjusting to IE6 and our codes are such to fit for IE6 and also not compromise with standard codes meaning we found a way around coding for IE6; hence, when now viewed in IE7 its broken, also I've tried centering the layouts to the browser width and height using CSS it does not work anymore, and oh by the way it used to work with IE6 and I'm using standard codes no hacks yet so here is another problem with IE7. And to quote Dave "...before you bad mouth it. It could be the "expert", not the "product". ..." Chris is right, but so far IE7 is almost standard yet there are again several problems that needs to be resolved, but I'm glad that its getting there, for now the most standard browser is FireFox. Here is an example of the site I did http://www.lawyerboutique.com/ try viewing it with IE7 you can see that the tabs don't look that seamless anymore.
It's really just a collection of one's and zeroes, so to me it's not worth more than one.
to taficke: Mac OS X might cost $129 /upgrade, but if you look at the recent cycle it's actually once every 18-24 months. Also you don't HAVE to buy each upgrade, so if you really want to sit with the same OS for 5 years you can get the latest and greatest for only $129. Personally I'd prefer to have more frequent, cheaper upgrades. But if you're happy to stick with the same OS for half a decade then more power to ya.
Bah. $49.95 and not a penny more, I say! And that's if Microsoft included a hard drive in the package to accommodate this wretched piece of bloatware. 40 GB of space for the operating system? Are they nuts?
I would pay $5.00. I can download Novell Or OpenSuse with XGL graphics. Beagle desktop search and hundreds of other features for free. So why pay the M$ tax?
Someone posted this below: "I feel that Microsoft should take in consideration that most of their user are students or parents of students whom is trying their best to give their sons/daughters the best tools for learning in today's computer world" Their market share is mainly businesses - but businesses usually get a bulk rate. I believe microsoft should offer skeleton versions of their OS. Maybe they should create something where you can pick and choose the options online and download the new OS to *your* own specifications. That'd actually be a nifty idea..... of course I bet there is some marketing/money-making reason why they wouldn't do that.
If Vista is as additionally complicated over XP to use as XP is over 98 and ME, I would pay extra to not have Vista. I have recently upgraded from ME to XP and it has been the biggest headache in my computer history which dates back to MS-DOS 5 and windows 3.1. Each change promises better stability but gives no better stability, but is more complicated to use. Give me a simple operating system that works, then let's talk about value. I don't think Vista is going to come close to that.
It is worth nothing to me. I use software that requires windows to run. If that software was available for Linux, I would have no use for windows.
John3347: a simple operating system that works ... Try OS X. Added bennie: in the highly unlikely event that you don't like it, the machine can still run Windoze too, and OS X takes up a QUARTER of the HD space. :-)
Aero $10 but that is generous as I don't have the hardware to run it yet. Shell I'll give you that one Search/Sidebar agree Mail/Calender ZIPO I use the web/AJAX Media Ctr your 20 spot sounds about right Snipping if it is cool ten as well. IE7 I have one word Firefox Security $100 if you don't have to patch it every month ...OH wait they have had to patch already! ZIPO. DRM Digital ripoff madness -50 All the rest give 'em a finn. Lessee my total is $35 I guess I'll pass.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by collision_spark on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd rather move to a *nix OS than pay for $300 for Vista (or $260 for the upgrade) simply because Windows is just trying to compete with Linux OS these days, and the only way they're winning is with compatibility (but WINE has done a good job so far, and it just keeps on getting better) and games. I for one am not a Gamer, so I benefit from using Redhat, the only reason I use Windows still is for 3ds Max 7 (3d modelling program) which is windows-only. Everything else I use runs on Linux better than Windows.