ie8 fix

Windows 7 OEM pricing: What could and should Microsoft do?

By | June 16, 2009, 8:29am PDT

Summary: The most misunderstood and closely guarded piece of the Windows pricing equation, in my view, is OEM pricing. A June 12 report on OEMs allegedly balking at Microsoft’s planned Windows 7 pricing is fanning the flames.

Microsoft still has yet to go public with its Windows 7 price list. But that hasn’t stopped customers and partners from publicly hoping for the best (cheaper than Vista) and fearing the worst (any kind of increase over the cost of Vista).

The most misunderstood and closely guarded piece of the Windows pricing equation, in my view, is OEM pricing. A June 12 report on OEMs allegedly balking at Microsoft’s planned Windows 7 pricing is fanning the flames.

More than a decade ago, the U.S. Department of Justice forced Microsoft to standardize Windows pricing for its top 20 PC maker partners — to stop the company from using pricing as a weapon via which it could charge higher prices to “punish” OEMs who deigned to carry other operating systems. But that still doesn’t mean OEM pricing is “simple.”

In the good old days, Microsoft could get away with upping the per-copy OEMs price for Windows by $15, $20 or more over the previous version, claiming that it was providing PC makers with more and more functionality with each release. But today, Microsoft is actually removing previously bundled Windows features — everything from Internet Explorer, to Photo Gallery, to Media Player — in order to head off current and potential antitrust suits. Should the company be charging PC makers more for a new version of Windows that includes less functionality?

Then there’s the added complication of netbooks. In order to thwart Linux, Microsoft has chopped the per-copy price it charges for Windows XP for netbooks to an estimated $15 per copy, according to various sources. With Windows 7, Microsoft is believed to be attempting to reduce the number of machines that will qualify for netbook status by setting maximum specs (10.2-inch screen size, no hybrid drives, etc.).

DigiTimes claims Microsoft is floating a per-copy price for Windows 7 for netbooks of $45 to $55 — a claim I find somewhat dubious, given that DigiTimes is reporting that XP currently goes for $25 to $35 a copy for netbooks, rather than $15. Maybe the prices DigiTimes is citing are for OEMs who aren’t in the Top 20 tier?  Or maybe those are the per-copy Windows prices it is planning to charge OEMs for non-netbook machines?

There’s another assumption related to the June 12 DigiTimes report that I believe is off-base.

Many industry watchers seem to be assuming that PC makers “pass along” higher operating system costs to their customers. The thinking: Netbook makers’ margins are so tight that even a few dollars more for a new operating system would be rejected outright by the OEMs.

However, if history is any indication, this may not be a safe assumption. In the past, when Microsoft raised Windows prices, PC makers simply ate the higher costs. Consumers weren’t willing to pay substantially more for a new Windows PC just because it happened to be running the latest and greatest version of Windows.

If Microsoft were to up the $15 per copy price that it is believed to be charging netbook makers for XP to, say, $20 or $25 per copy for Windows 7, I think netbook makers would bite the bullet and pay it … at least until they amassed enough evidence that consumers would be equally happy to buy Linux/Android netbooks as they have been more familiar Windows-based ones.

Microsoft should be unveiling Windows 7 consumer prices by next week at the latest, given that the Windows 7 Best Buy promotional campaign is expected to kick off by June 26. That means there might be some new leaks about what the company is planning to charge its OEM partners per copy for Windows 7, too.

What do you think Microsoft could — and should — do around Windows 7 pricing? If you were Microsoft’s Chief Windows Price Setter, would you hold Windows 7 pricing steady, increase it slightly, or come in on the low side?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

132
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Windows 7 OEM pricing: What could and should Microsoft do?
homeioy3501-24353673204260071837977457723365 11th Nov
dukqze,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
Bigger flaw in the analysis.
TheWerewolf 16th Jun 2009
We're talking about the per-copy price of Win7 as if it were a fixed amount, which it probably is - but the tacit assumption is that the price of the netbook it's running on is *also* a fixed price across all netbooks, which it isn't.

Netbooks range from $199 to $799. If Windows goes from $15 to $55 (the worse case scenario), then it adds about $40 to the price. On $199 that's significant, but on $799, it's not. So this really only affects the cheapest models.

But it's not even that simple. Price alone is not what decides which model a consumer will purchase. If it was, everyone would be buying the $199-$299 Linux based models. However, that's simply not the case.

In fact, Linux models already tend to be around $25 - $50 cheaper for essentially the same device and people are still choosing Windows over Linux in huge numbers.

It's not Linux Win7 will be competing against, it's WinXP and once Win7 ships, WinXP won't be on the table anymore. Which means there's be a short transition period when people will see WinXP models slightly cheaper than Win7 models, and then the choice will go back to Windows or Linux (unless Apple pops up with something).

The REAL question is going to be "Win7 Starter or Win7 Premium?"
0 Votes
+ -
I see the cheapest netbooks shipping with XP and the higher priced netbooks shipping with Win 7. If MS really wants all of them to use Win 7, they will have to bring the price a LOT lower than $55 per unit.
0 Votes
+ -
You said ...
mwagner@... 17th Jun 2009
... "In fact, Linux models already tend to be around $25 - $50 cheaper for essentially the same device and people are still choosing Windows over Linux in huge numbers."

But, from what I have seen, Linux models consistently have less RAM and very small SSD drives instead of medium sized hard drives found on Windows netbooks. Not only does this cut into Windows battery life, it means that OS pricing has almost nothing to do with the the difference in price between Linux and Windows netbooks.

Your point though remains intact. Windows remains the overwhelming choice of users. Windows XP is dead and everyone knows it. RAM is cheap and Windows 7 runs on 1GB sub-2GHz single-core processors. Further, having no AERO option makes Starter Edition a sub-standard choice. Starter Edition on netbooks will be short lived.
0 Votes
+ -
You pointed out in your comment that the Linux models are coming with a small SSD and less RAM. Maybe you should read your own post for why Windows netbooks are getting chosen instead of Linux ones.

By the way, when you choose a Linux netbook, how much crapware is it filled with that must be removed in order to attain that price point?
0 Votes
+ -
Linux and MacOSX are free from ...
mwagner@... 17th Jun 2009
... crapware because they are ALLOWED to control what is installed on their systems. The MS-DoJ Consent Decree FORBIDS Microsoft from such "interference" with the OEM. CRAPWARE is an unfortunate "unintended consequence" of the Consent Decree.

If customers are choosing better hardware then so be it. They are not paying a premium for Windows, they are paying a premium for better hardware.

Frankly, I think Linux and Windows should be sold SIDE-BY-SIDE on identical hardware. The results might be enlightening for all parties and it would truly level the playing field.

But who is going to tell Dell or HP they have to sell something that they perceive that too few people want. Who is going to tell Wal-Mart they have to stock it?
0 Votes
+ -
Now why do you think that is?
Wintel BSOD 17th Jun 2009
'Frankly, I think Linux and Windows should be sold SIDE-BY-SIDE on identical hardware. The results might be enlightening for all parties and it would truly level the playing field.

Why do you think that's not happening?

But who is going to tell Dell or HP they have to sell something that they perceive that too few people want. Who is going to tell Wal-Mart they have to stock it?

I imagine the government will, if they find M$ is still engaging in the same nonsense they were engaged with 10 years ago.
0 Votes
+ -
Ideology and facts
tonymcs@... 17th Jun 2009
Don't know where you two were, but it already happened. The response was so low that they discontinued Linux. So how is an ideologue going to deal with these facts?

Say they didn't do it right, because anyone would choose a 20C OS over a modern one right?

Facts are such a pain when you're an ideologue.

wink
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not too worried about the future
Wintel BSOD Updated - 18th Jun 2009
Don't know where you two were, but it already happened. The response was so low that they discontinued Linux. So how is an ideologue going to deal with these facts?

And I'd like to know why that is. Response too low? Gee, it was doing just fine until M$ pulled XP out of mothballs and started installing them on netbooks for next to nothing. Then all of a sudden we don't see Linux on the shelves anymore.

Say they didn't do it right, because anyone would choose a 20C OS over a modern one right?

You mean like it's currently being marketed? On half-a$$ed, inferior hardware? That is, if you can find it at all.

Facts are such a pain when you're an ideologue.

I believe with a new Administration in Washington, we'll begin to see that change. No more free-rides.

That's my ideology. wink
0 Votes
+ -
I Totally agree
Richard Turpin 19th Jun 2009
I had a racking in the shop nearly full of Linux returns customers just don't want it 90% brought it back claiming it wasn't fit for purpose. Very expensive campaign that fell on its arse.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe the simple answer - XP just doesn't fit onto an 8 GB SSD with all the bells and whistles. There's not much room left over.
You will.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux is not visible to the consumers
InnocentBystander 19th Jun 2009
The problem is that as lokn as there is no market force behind Linux, it will not hit the shelves. One reason Windows sell is that Microsoft actively use resources (a lot) to make the consumers buy their product. Linux? Never seen a Linux ad outside of the Linux manazines.

The only way to get the consumers to buy PCs with Linux is to tell them that it exists. Before they go to the shop. And that is not Dell or Lenovo or other PC makers job. That is the job of those who create the software.

Point to prove it: Apple sell (more and more these days) PCs that are generally more expensive than their Windows based equivalents (I know, I bought one). How can they do it? Smart marketing. Make consumers aware it is there and that it is different.

How about somebody someody try to do the same for their Linux distribution?
0 Votes
+ -
What should MS do?
JT82 16th Jun 2009
Well this is two parts...should and probably will happen.

First, what should Microsoft do? Well to start reward those who paid for the highest sku [READ: Vista Ultimate] and offer it for say $29 or something highly attractive to make up for the Ulimate Extras blunder. Then take the rest of the skus and offer special "Vista" pricing - say 25-30% off the shelf price - again spreading good will and use it as a catalyst to move people beyond Vista so the ABM crowd can stop dragging its name through the mud.

Now what probably wil happen? Ultimate will be $199 upgrade/$349 Retail, Business $129 upgrade /$299 retail, and Home Premium will be $99 upgrade and /$199 full retail.

Vista Ultimate skus only may see a 20% discount.

I am not going to speculate on the enterprise verison because that is sent out via special licencing.
0 Votes
+ -
.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, totally...
SimonUK2 17th Jun 2009
That is the fairest way to price it. Why should those that didn't
upgrade get the benefits? This is one thing that i think that most people
would agree that Microsoft should follow Apple's precedent on.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista "Upgrade" Pricing ...
Johnny Brandie 17th Jun 2009
... as the cost invariably translates to $1 = ?1 for some reason with MS's exchange rates, that would mean that I would have to fork out another ?199 wedge of my hard earned cash, on top of the initial ?299 I paid for Vista Ultimate about 18 months ago! So, that would mean I'd have to spend the best part of ?500 just for an operating system that doesn't do too much more than it does at present ... that's NOT going to happen any time soon, believe me!

I'll just stick with Vista Ultimate until either it, or my machine, falls over, then I'll look and see what my options are at that point in time ... maybe MS will have gone bust by then due to everyone boycotting them for their show of pure unadulterated avarice in the midst of a global recession, who knows! The MS management group are now about as popular with the general public as the bankers are ... and for the same reason ... bleeding the public purse until it squeeks!
0 Votes
+ -
I'm with you
mietz 17th Jun 2009
Although I don't have Vista Ultimate I believe you are correct with sticking with what you have until the hardware needs to be replaced.
I have Home Premium and not having any problems with the system, except for long boot times since installing IE-8. I had the same problem with IE-7 until I turned off one of its features. I only wish I could remember what I did so I could do it to IE-8.
However, I don't plan to upgrade the OS just becaust it is there.
0 Votes
+ -
... compelling reason for you to pay good money to go out and buy Windows 7. Wait until you buy new hardware.

If you are running XP now and you own ample hardware made since 2005, go out and buy the edition of Windows 7 which comes closest to the edition of XP you are running.

If your hardware is old (before 2005) lame (less than 2GHz single-core processor, less than 1GB RAM, less than 80GB HDD, or XDDM-only graphics only), wait for Windows 7 to ship and then go visit your favorite OEM and buy a new machine.
0 Votes
+ -
VISTA sucks
ozzy_66_62000@... 17th Jun 2009
If a person has VISTA there is every reason to upgrade as windows vista sucks surprisingly windows 7 is almost as good as xp better in some ways
0 Votes
+ -
(NT)
0 Votes
+ -
... but not today. Provided you are running at ~2GHz with 2GB of RAM. On less hardware, Vista SP2 still struggles.

Granted, Windows 7 does MUCH BETTER with 1GB of RAM and even runs okay with only 512MB of RAM (not that Microsoft is going to admit that!)

I've been running Windows 7 (now RC x64) and it is great. I'll jump to RTM as soon as I can get a copy but I am not going to bother upgrading my wife's 3.4GHz Celeron or my son's 1.8GHz dual-core AMD laptop because both run Vista SP2 very well with 2GB of RAM.

If you want to upgrade, by all means do so but don't complain about it.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista still has issues that 7 dosn't
Breetai 17th Jun 2009
I don't know where the claims that 7 is just Vista polished up come from. The code may share the same base so they can share drivers but the 64bit 8800 Nvidia Video drivers for Vista are still wonky as hell, but so far work fine in 7. All I care about are realworld experiences now you guys have lost significant credibility.
0 Votes
+ -
My dad's Viista machine...
Wintel BSOD 17th Jun 2009
...just had another BSOD today. It never had one when XP was running on it.

That's why I still consider it a bloated POS, even today.
0 Votes
+ -
Your dad's BSOD
rtk 17th Jun 2009
Maybe you should have someone with some computer experience have a look at it.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
You're dad's BSOD
Tynach 17th Jun 2009
Just had another Windows Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Why bother
Wintel BSOD 18th Jun 2009
The machine's already four & a half years old now. It does reasonably well sitting there as a print server with the home router attached to it. If I'd made any mistake, it was taking M$'s "Vista capable" upgrade tool's word for it.

So much for M$ POS upgrades...
0 Votes
+ -
Agree it was lame
mrohwohlt@... 17th Jun 2009
Microsoft screwed the pooch when they said Vista would run on 1 GB of RAM. It would install & boot but run? I've been running Vista 64 Ultimate for about a year. It started off a little quirky but after the service pack it was much better and have had no issues to date. As for Windows 7 I think I'll wait awhile. I would like to see MS offer users the chance to migrate from Vista to 7 for a small upgrade fee. As for the OEM issue the manufacturers will move to 7 as they did from 95>98>millenium>XP. It's the consumers (corporations included) that have made the transition to Vista a slow go. Driver issues, the cost of upgrading HW coupled with the expense of the OS and the notion the 7 was on the way prevented Vista from taking flight.

With all the 'good' being said about 7 I think it will do well.
0 Votes
+ -
Not totally true
LarryLaser 17th Jun 2009
Hey "ozzy_66_62000"
Yes Vista is not so good,(not really sucks, but close).
As far as Windows 7 It is not even as "almost as good as xp better in some ways".
I have been Beta testing Windows 7 on 6 different PC's in both x64 and x86 platforms and on older and new Desktop's and Laptops (including a netbook - AspireONE), and Windows 7 has many bugs and hardware compatibility issues, and all the Debugging tests from crashes and freeze ups happen from the same driver issues that happened and still happen in the Vista versions. The primary bug id is almost always VISTA_DRIVER_*ID*.
Until Microsoft and the Hardware manufactures finally get the systems more stable I (and many Others who state) Will not purchase Windows 7, cause of the same issues of Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
vista sucks
jdyl 17th Jun 2009
Yeah except Vista is a piece of crap and Windows 7 is not. Why would you want to continue using a piece of crap when you can get a significant performance boost from installing Win 7? Tell me a good reason. The only people who probably do not need to switch are the ones whose operating task needs are so minimal that they can afford to let their system resources continue to be eaten up by one of the most bloated operating systems conceived by man. But more likely, at some point most users are going to want, or need, that extra performance power.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista sucks, next time it works
pkrdk 17th Jun 2009
Yeah, and pay again for getting something that maybe works.

just like: Last car I bought was a true lemon, everything failed when sometimes it actually did start. Manufacturer says next experiment will work, so I am certain I will buy that. Why have troubles with the car from last year, when this years model works. Money back from the old one or a discount? Forget it.
Full saticfaction or your money is wasted.

Remember W/2000 - the OS that would never need a fixpack?.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, Win2K was (is) a great OS but never needs a fixpack??? Last I checked, W2K was on SP4!!! That's FOUR (4) Service Pack releases to get it to where it was so great. Funny how fast people forget about little facts like that...
No he wasn't saying that it didn't need Service Packs, he was saying that Microsoft said it would never need Service Packs when it was released.

You are right it is a good OS. I never used XP at all. I went form NT4 to W2000 to Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Could you PLEASE...
His_Shadow 18th Jun 2009
...stop talking as if Windows 7 is something different from Vista? Windows 7 is a service Pack. A big pack with some major improvements, but Windows 7 is Vista. If Vista didn't work on your current machine, neither will Windows 7ista. If you had applications and hardware that didn't work with Vista, there is a better chance that they will work with 7ista but only if you bought them since Vista came out. if it wasn't supported at all with Vista, it wont be supported under 7ista.

"Windows 7" internal MS designation is 6.1. They had 7-8 years to do something cool with Vista and the only way they got it out the door at all was by hacking off all the things that were going to make it cool. Now if you want to believe they couldn't do it after 7 years but got it done in 18 months, be my guest, but you are just deluding yourself.

0 Votes
+ -
Completely Agree
James29UK 17th Jun 2009
People in Britain have been ripped off by Microsoft for years. If anybody remembers when Vista was launched the price then was $1=?1, so we paid about 50% more than the Americans. We're buying essentially the same product with only a few small changes such as the word color being changed to colour. Of course Microsoft isn't alone in this Adobe and ITunes are the other great offenders. I know we're talking about OEM pricing here but the cheapest way of getting an upgrade will probably be to download the RC and wait till the last minute to buy a licence for it. Microsoft already charge people with an illegal copy less to buy a licence than legitimate users.
0 Votes
+ -
I feel that we as consumers should be able to buy a new computer without an OS pre-installed. The way it works now it is very hard not to have Windows pre-installed on a new computer even if we want an alternate OS.
I don't like the fact that when I buy a new computer that I have to pay a "Windows Tax" just to get the hardware. Do I have to build my own computer just so I don't have to pay this fee or will the OEM's start offering a choice?

lrfocke
0 Votes
+ -
What Windows Tax
mailbox01 16th Jun 2009
Consumers are not going to buy a PC without any OS unless your tech savvy. The only reason that Windows is on PC's is because Apple does not license the Mac OS to any other hardware vendor and mainstream consumers is not aware/knowledgable about Linux. So until the majority of consumers become tech-savvy or Linux community advertise and become user friendly to the average person or if Apple license their OS, Windows will remain. Also, if your knowledable about having a PC without an OS, why are you buying a barebones system when you can easily build one.

0 Votes
+ -
Contradiction...
storm14k 16th Jun 2009
You say people are not going to buy a PC without an OS and then suggest buying a barebones system. So if they are not going to buy barebones systems then why do they sell them?

I believe he means he would like to see some of the particular OEM models without an OS. Maybe he wants the exact specs (case included) that the OEM is offering without Windows. Where the problem really comes into play is on laptops. I'd like to buy laptops without Windows.

I doubt Mac is going to license their OS. It works well for them as it is. Linux is user friendly for the average user as it is today. Whether any of the distros decides to advertise or not remains to be seen.
0 Votes
+ -
optioins
Louis Ross Focke 16th Jun 2009
I am not saying that most consumers would not want an OS on their systems as they are not all that computer knowledgeable, I am saying that it would be convenient for those that do not want Windows on a system should not have to pay for Windows just to get a new pre-fabbed computer. Just give us a choice.

lrfocke
0 Votes
+ -
Tech Savvy ...
Johnny Brandie 17th Jun 2009
... if a buyer is tech savvy enough to install an OS of their own choosing from scratch ... then I'm sure they will also know how to type "Format C" first and then install it! wink

A computer system without a pre-installed OS would just be a very expensive desk ornament or paperweight to some (most) people! wink
0 Votes
+ -
Not to nit pick....
SpikeyMike 17th Jun 2009
But computer-savvy folks know you don't type "Format C" first and then install an OS.

0 Votes
+ -
They will if the new machine came with a MS OS pre-installed ... that IS what we're discussing here isn't it, freedom of choice over an OEM supplied system? And while I said "Format C", I was using this phrase loosely, (as an old DOS programmer!) ... for computer savvy people only, who wanted to install a "NEW" OS OVER the one supplied from the shop!
0 Votes
+ -
options...
bartle.berlin@... 17th Jun 2009
This, (-at least here in Germany it seems to work this wy) is up to local medium size suppliers to offer for example an on-line "Configure your own PC-" Service, where one selects comp. components from a large range of choices at each stage. They check the configuration, and build it locally at rock bottom prices, a bit below thier price for the individual components bought separately. O.S. has to be ordered separately as default or none. It helps that under German fair-trading laws anybody can buy a stand- alone OEM O.S. (just lacks the fancy package/Handbook/MS-Support.)

Hard to understand why folks here crying for a chance to buy a ready-assembled PC minus O.S. - we do it all the time locally.

0 Votes
+ -
because...
Wintel BSOD Updated - 17th Jun 2009
Hard to understand why folks here crying for a chance to buy a ready-assembled PC minus O.S. - we do it all the time locally.

That would interfere with the current monopoly status that we in the U.S. have.
0 Votes
+ -
Come on, not that old spinesagging workhorse again. Modern Linux installation is simpler that installing Windows, and as simple as installing a pre-loaded windows. Boot from the CD, confirm your language and time-zone, confirm your HW, and get a cup of coffee. After 1 hour everything is up and running, including internet and office package.

Don't confuse installing a pre-loaded windows and Windows on a raw PC from a CD. Thats a very different story, mostly it fails.
0 Votes
+ -
You sure don't need to be tech savy to use
mjolnar@... 17th Jun 2009
Linux now days. You can install the latest Ubuntu in about 20 minutes, most everything but MS hardware will run on it. There really isn't a steep learning curve like in the past. If Windows cost $199, you can save that price by buying the hardware alone.

As far as building your own machine. You don't need to build your own, you can have one assembled for you for around $75. in most areas. Any computer repair shop will do it for you. Check out pricing, I just built my own Dragon for $319, only had to switch my HDD and DVDs over. I sold the old parts for $100, I am running Jaunty Jackalope with 4 cores and 4GB of 1600 DDR3. Yea, that Windows Tax.
0 Votes
+ -
to build or not to build that is a question
mrohwohlt@... 17th Jun 2009
I build my own PCs only for the fact I get exactly what I want without paying a premium. However, I have bought for others OEM remanufactured PCs w/ XP or Vista basic cheaper ($199) than a mother board & CPU. I'm sure that it would not have been any cheaper without the OS. It's not high end stuff but for most who just e-mail & surf these systems are fine.
0 Votes
+ -
Win OMe
BOSS4908 16th Jun 2009
A computer without an os. That might be ok for me and you. I build my own so that is what I get but for most people that is just crazy. You buy a pc with no OS and then expect the builders to stand behind it. I don't think so.
There are plenty of computers available with a choice of os. Dell, Gateway for example. Linux would not sell in any big numbers if it was $200. cheeper than the same computer with windows. When will you people get it. The vast majority of people buy windows because they like it...period. If you do not like Windows build your own computer. Back to the point OEM should be priced the same as Vista. Retail should offer an extra $50 rebate if upgradeing from Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Win OMe
n0neXn0ne Updated - 16th Jun 2009
"The vast majority of people buy windows because they like it ...period."

False premise.

Have you ever read a satisfaction survey?

"Now you know why so many use Windows. Microsoft has mastered the art of creating low expectations."


^o^

Huh???? The vast majority don't buy windows, they buy the computer that already has windows on it. What other choices do they have? Mac? For most it is too expensive. Linux? sure if you purchase the computer online or take home a box preloaded with windows and eradicate it yourself or have a tech do it. Simple fact is, MS shovels tons of cash to OEM's to keep windows on and Linux off.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sorry but just were are theses facts? Why would MS pay OEMS only to get the money back in sales. Name one company the size of MS that doesn't wine and dine it customers.And people do buy computers for windows,i do because all my software will only run on Windows,and I'm not about to throw away money on it for it just might work with wine. Or having to buy a full copy of windows to mount on an apple machine
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7 OEM pricing: What could and should Microsoft do?
homeioy3501-24353673204260071837977457723365 11th Nov
dukqze,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix