Microsoft announces Windows Vista retail price cuts

Roughly a year and one month after the release of Windows Vista, Microsoft has decided to adjust its new operating system’s pricing. Microsoft announced the move today in a Q&A session where Windows consumer marketing VP Brad Brooks revealed the cuts will debut globally with the release of Vista Service Pack 1 next month.  The price reductions will mainly apply to retail upgrade editions of the operating system, and pricing will be adjusted differently in different regions.

Brooks says  emerging markets will see full and upgrade retail versions of Vista Home Basic and Home Premium merged and prices lowered. Users in developed countries, meanwhile, can look forward to reduced pricing for upgrade versions of Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate. Brooks doesn’t quote any numbers, but he says the cuts are already in effect at Amazon.com in the United States. Indeed, Amazon currently sells the Vista Home Premium upgrade for $94.99 instead of $159.95 and the Vista Home Basic upgrade for $51.79 instead of $99.95.

These cuts could spur demand from Windows XP users seeking to upgrade, but they aren’t much good to users building news PC and wanting brand new Windows licenses—at least, in theory. A workaround discovered a couple of days before Vista’s retail launch allows users to install an upgrade version of Vista from scratch, with no need for a previously installed version of Windows. Microsoft stated after the discovery of the loophole that it had no plans to fix the workaround, saying it believed "only a very small percentage of people will take the time to implement this workaround."

Comments closed
    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    The upgrade OS prices are decent especially for those of us in the know about installing it on top of itself. The only version of upgrade is ‘retail upgrade’ right? So no ambiguity about whether you can install it on another mobo like OEM. Now just need to wait for a SP1 version, sure it can be slipstreamed but it would save some hassle.

    • ludi
    • 11 years ago

    These smell a bit like the Judgment Day prices on Windows Me right before Microsoft released XP, and permanently scraped Me off its collective shoe.

    • Thresher
    • 11 years ago

    So, not to be a Mac schmuck, but I’m gonna do it anyway:

    Mac OS X basic, home Premium, Business, Ultimate, upgrade, and full editions of all: $129

    The only other edition is the $199 five license family pack.

      • PRIME1
      • 11 years ago

      Linux is Free! Ya schmuck ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Grigory
        • 11 years ago

        If your time is worthless and/or you fiddle with computer for fun, then definitely. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      And each “service pack” of 10.x.y, 10.x.y+1, 10.x.y+2 cost the same $129 *[

        • Forge
        • 11 years ago

        OK, enough of this bull. 10.5.0 cost 129$, sure. 10.5.1 did not. 10.5.2 did not. 10.5.3 WILL NOT. 10.5.4 WILL NOT.

        10.6.0 will. That will be Mac OSX 2009 or 2010 edition. It’s a major rewrite/upgrade.

        If you’re going to argue, argue. Lying just makes you look uninformed or foolish.

          • Flying Fox
          • 11 years ago

          I was uninformed. That’s why I did put a question mark there. ๐Ÿ˜ณ

          So they are playing with the numbers there. For 10.x.y, so y changes and they are free fixes. “x” is considered more of a major version number then.

          Still, Win2K lasted about 4 years, XP about 5. Instead of having to upgrade the “x” every 2 years? Of course, there are those who are probably still on Panther or Tiger. It’s fine.

          Just thought this little mini-thread was supposed to be lighter-hearted by being schmucks? ๐Ÿ˜›

          Sorry if that makes me a liar in your eyes. Have to sacrifice a goat to his Steveness now as penance?

          • kaikara
          • 11 years ago

          It is not bull. The changes in OS X from one version to another are minor evolutionary changes. Mostly bug fixes and minor changes to the system itself. If you bought every version of OS X you paid far more than you would have even if you bought XP retail when it was released. XP is more than 6 years old. It had a major refresh with SP2 and none of them you had to pay for. The amount of changes in SP2 for XP is way more than you ever got on an OS X upgrade and it was free. Plus 6 years on SP3 is on its way.

          On top of this it is unfair to compare OS X pricing to MS retail pricing. Can you buy an apple computer without OS X on it? Nope. You can walk into a store and buy OS X but technically you are only able to run it on apple hardware. So OS X is more like Microsoft’s OEM licensing that ties the OS to a computer. Take a look at what XP or Vista’s OEM costs are if you just buy a copy off the shelf. If you buy a computer from Dell you are paying even less then that. MS prices are extremely fair when you compare them in that way and even better then Apple’s pricing scheme.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 11 years ago

            you’ve obviously never used OS X.

            • kaikara
            • 11 years ago

            You obviously like to make statements with little or no information to back up your claims. I actually use it quite a bit. I have deployed it on numerous occasions and tested it often for my own purposes. It is not my primary OS as I use Linux and Vista for that though. Nice way to respond to my post though. How am I wrong in what I posted? I don’t believe that the average user has been served in paying 129 per version. If you found features that you need then that is great. But saying that Windows is somehow far more expensive then OS X is unfair even when you look at a retail license. IMO someone who bough XP Pro retail on release got and continues to get very good value for their dollar as compared to OS X even though OS X appears to be cheaper when you look at initial cost.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 11 years ago

            so you’ve…installed it and not really used it, maybe tested something, and are yet qualified to claim for all of us that what’s been added since 10.0.x is only incremental? Or, even if it is, that it’s not been worth the cost? You probably haven’t used it enough to notice anything but the color(s) of a Finder window.

            • kaikara
            • 11 years ago

            First you post that I have never used it. And now I haven’t used it enough. Come on. You can’t base an argument on something you have no knowledge of. At least try and look semi-intelligent and base your argument on something that has substance and not what you are pulling out of your ass.

    • Grigory
    • 11 years ago

    Nice. When I finally upgrade to Vista after building a new PC it will be cheaper. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • sativa
    • 11 years ago

    remote desktop is a big feature to have.

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      If you are talking about the RDP client then it is on all the variants.

        • sativa
        • 11 years ago

        i am talking about using remote desktop INTO vista ultimate. you can’t remote desktop into a home premium box.

    • green
    • 11 years ago

    still haven’t attempted vista
    might give it a try in a few months/quarters time (maybe sp2?)

    it took me a while to move off 98se to 2k
    also took sp1 for me to move to xp
    currently on sp2. have never run windows update

    can’t wait to see how ‘slow’ vista is on stock settings
    it’s funny as i found xp was slow on stock settings as well
    then i turned off the eye-candy and it ran just fine

    then i disabled all the processes i’m not using
    and the memory footprint after boot dropped to ~120mb
    surviving pretty well on 1gb of ram

    the point? i’m assuming vista by default is set to ‘bloat’
    but would run fine once the crap you don’t need is turned off
    (if you need funky animations when minimizing/maximizing windows, then what you really need is a toy)

    • indeego
    • 11 years ago

    Vista Business: small through large corps. Maybe. On the fence, wait a while. Why do we need desktops anymore? Google save us!

    Gamers: Stick with XP Pro, but you’ll eventually migrate to Vista 64 or its successor. Or stick with a console. They are “fun” if not the best eye candy possible.

    Home users: Migrate to OSX.

    Cheap Home users/Businesses: Migrate to Linux.

    There, I solved the world’s problemsg{<.<}g

      • 5150
      • 11 years ago

      What took you so long?

      • stmok
      • 11 years ago

      l[

        • green
        • 11 years ago

        some claim there is a link between being a cheapskate and having a bit of cash to throw around…

        • indeego
        • 11 years ago

        Yeah. Don’t forget Amazon. Companies are cheap that see that Linux has far lower TCO long term. Cheap isn’t bad. It’s thinking about the money in more than marketing terms from MSg{<.<}g

        • SGT Lindy
        • 11 years ago

        I doubt those organizations go for Linux for “cheap” reasons. Enterprise versions Red Hat Linux cost as much as Windows on the server side.

        I am sure most people understood he meant build a cheap PC out of older parts, grab Ubuntu, Open Office…..and many other free apps. Total cost $300 or less.

        I would say many people overlook the Mac Mini when they think about OS X, the low end one is $599, cheaper if you get them off Apple refurb site.

    • SGT Lindy
    • 11 years ago

    Hmmm polish that turd Microshaft….its still a turd.

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    This is for retail copies; does anyone actually buy those?

    Non-issue here, unless you’re from MacDailyNews and it suits your propaganda postings…then it’s all about Vista is t3h sUk! MacOSX 3l33t OMGWTFBBQR0X0RZ!!!one!!!1!eleventyhundredandone!!!1

      • MBIlover
      • 11 years ago

      Hahaha, I had a good belly laugh over that last part, “elevenhundredandone”.

    • danny e.
    • 11 years ago

    vista had a lot of potential .. but then sales and management interfered with development.

    the retail prices for vista are also still too high. and the licensing is getting crazy. drop Vista Ultimate down to $199 and I’d probably buy.. however the current plan is for me to wait for Vista II in 2010.

    having read that the idiotic woman responsible for the office 2007 look is in charge of Vista II look, however, brings much fear and trembling to me. office 2007 is the slowest and fugliest piece of crap i have ever seen. sadly, its a requirement at work.

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      Office 2007’s UI is actually one of the best steps they have made in the evolution of the product. The others just look the same. Plus Ribbon really does give some usability enhancements.

      IMO of course.

        • cygnus1
        • 11 years ago

        you’re not wrong

        • BenBasson
        • 11 years ago

        I totally agree.

        • fpsduck
        • 11 years ago

        Agree on MS Office 2K7 UI.

        My sister is not computer nerd
        but she praised the Ribbons for the ease of use.

      • Risme
      • 11 years ago

      *[

    • UberGerbil
    • 11 years ago

    Microsoft finally facing real competition in the OS market…. from itself. Vista losing out to XP.

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      And OSX (raising significantly) and Linux (raising very slowly,)

      To date this hasn’t been at the expense of Microsoft Desktop marketshare, but nothing says that can’t startg{<.<}g

        • SGT Lindy
        • 11 years ago

        I am pretty sure that in the US, Windows market share dropped from 94% to 91%, and OSX rose 3%. Nothing to worry about for MS….yet.

    • Hance
    • 11 years ago

    This is proof that Vistas sales suck and microsoft is trying to boost sales. I am still going to stick with XP price cut or not XP is still the better OS.

      • BenBasson
      • 11 years ago

      You’d have a point if OEM sales didn’t totally eclipse retail sales for operating systems.

        • UberGerbil
        • 11 years ago

        Right, but they’re only dropping prices on retail SKUs. Ignoring the OEM market, and looking strictly at retail, Vista sales obviously aren’t measuring up. There’s no other reason for them to be dropping prices.

          • BenBasson
          • 11 years ago

          The point is that *most* people don’t buy operating systems via the retail route, they just wait until they upgrade their computer and get whatever is currently favourite for OEM. If anyone had high hopes for Vista retail, I suspect they need to get their heads examined. Does anyone know what XP retail figures were like? I bet they’re pretty shocking too.

          I personally don’t see how dropping Vista retail prices is going to really increase the uptake of Vista. It’s going to make Vista appeal slightly more to a tiny market, which is at best going to do very little for the overall sales of Vista.

          I don’t think anyone without Microsoft’s sales predictions and figures is really in a position to judge whether Vista is performing well enough or not. In a year, it’s done fairly well against an OS that is already very good (XP).

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    Finally MS is realizing how the steep MSRP for Vista licenses were hurting it.

    Home Basic and Home Premium Retail are going to be affordable as XP Home and XP Premium.

    I guess it still not stop the anti-M$ zealots from spreading the FUD.

      • Lord.Blue
      • 11 years ago

      XP Home and XP Pro or was that supposed to be XP MCE?

    • tesla120
    • 11 years ago

    I’m glad i get all my Microsoft software for free via MSDN… thank you ComSci department

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      If by Free you mean Computer Access Fees in the thousands during your tenure, then yes, freeg{<.<}g Nothing is free. Even if your University gets it "free" they have guidelines (highly restrictive) they must follow to keep it free. I'm not so certain that is the best choice for educating the masses.

      • enzia35
      • 11 years ago

      I bought Vista Ultimate for $10. Microsoft didn’t allow the sale of the 64-bit version though. It was in the terms of agreement for the university.

      • Mithent
      • 11 years ago

      Unfortunately, while I’m a student, I’m not a Computer Science student, and they only give them MSDN access – not even a discount for me, let alone free.

        • thecoldanddarkone
        • 11 years ago

        You could always download stuff from dream spark. ยง[< https://downloads.channel8.msdn.com/<]ยง

        • just brew it!
        • 11 years ago

        In MS’s view, they don’t get enough ROI (Return On Investment) from giving it to you for free. CS students are more likely to develop the next gen applications which will drive uptake of future versions of Windows. MS wants to make sure all those CS students are running Windows, not Linux!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    How fortuitous. I’m in need of a second Vista license.

    • Vrock
    • 11 years ago

    Funny, I don’t recall MS ever cutting prices on XP, and surely not a mere year or so after debuting. Or am I wrong?

    Sorry MS, I ain’t upgrading until I have to, cheap or no.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      No, I’m pretty sure I paid $100 for both of my Windows Home Premium upgrade licenses, which were bought about 3 years apart (the first in December 2001)

        • d0g_p00p
        • 11 years ago

        You bought Vista Home Premium in 2001 and 2004?

          • derFunkenstein
          • 11 years ago

          No, I meant XP Home Edition.

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      They are probably bringing things back to pre-Vista levels, as Acer pointed out that Home Premium is effectively a price increase since it is not the “lowest end” model anymore (let’s forget the N and Starter “3rd world nuttered” edition for the moment).

    • PerfectCr
    • 11 years ago

    EDIT see reply to #4

    • Dposcorp
    • 11 years ago

    Is there really any big reason to get Ultimate instead of Home Premium, besides the domain stuff?

    Basic to Home Premium gives you a lot more for the money, but Home Premium to Ultimate doesn’t seem that great.

    I know this is about the prices going down, but just wondering if anyone spent a lot of time with both editions.

    A home premium upgrade to a 2000 License for $95 doesn’t sound too bad., although home premium OEM is only $110 at Newegg.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 11 years ago

      I have Business on my laptop, and HP on my desktop, and Ultimate on my Wife’s laptop. Honestly, the only perceivable difference to me for home use is Windows Media Center. *shrug*

      • DASQ
      • 11 years ago

      Ultimate gives you the extra bits o’ networking features from Business… Bitlocker… MOVING WALLPAPERS!!! (Yeah, the real important one!) and some other bits that are really not worth the money.

        • indeego
        • 11 years ago

        Agreed. Ultimate is a waste of moneyg{<.<}g

          • no51
          • 11 years ago

          But you forget about the inches, dare I say feet? that having Ultimate adds to your e-peen.

          • Flying Fox
          • 11 years ago

          Not when you want Media Center features *[

            • indeego
            • 11 years ago

            I have a domain at work and home, and I find it a waste of money. There are better media servers, without DRMg{<.<}g The games and dreamscene are almost an insultg{<.<}g

            • Flying Fox
            • 11 years ago

            I like my domain at home. Just because you find it to be a waste of money doesn’t mean others will be in the same situation.

      • GodsMadClown
      • 11 years ago

      Yes, so that you can get Media server and Remote Desktop in the same OS.

    • PerfectCr
    • 11 years ago

    I might actually pickup an upgrade copy again (sold it before) to install in Boot Camp on my MacBook.

    I wish Steam had a Mac client. Grrrrrrr

      • no51
      • 11 years ago

      /[

        • PerfectCr
        • 11 years ago

        What do you mean huh. If you don’t understand what I said use google to enlighten yourself.

          • End User
          • 11 years ago

          What would be the point of having the Steam client available for Mac OS X? There are no Mac OS X compatible titles.

            • DaveJB
            • 11 years ago

            Several of the titles on Steam do have OS X versions, but I’m guessing it’d probably be too much hassle to develop an OS X version of Steam and then carry separate Windows and OS X versions of each title. Especially since most Mac gamers now just use Boot Camp to switch to Windows for gaming.

            Even if Valve did go to all that trouble, odds are that the Linux community would then start complaining about not having a version of Steam. And the whole cycle would begin again. ๐Ÿ˜›

          • no51
          • 11 years ago

          I don’t :\

      • tesla120
      • 11 years ago

      solution: buy a PC

        • PerfectCr
        • 11 years ago

        Ah no. The solution is to install XP or Vista via Boot Camp.

        Solution: Duh

          • End User
          • 11 years ago

          I don’t waste my time gaming on my Mac. I built a PC for that.

        • SGT Lindy
        • 11 years ago

        Real solution….give up PC gaming move to console gaming with the rest of the world.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 11 years ago

          Now that you mention it, I’m confused. PerfectCr is the champion of console gaming…he claimed to have given up PC gaming long ago.

            • PerfectCr
            • 11 years ago

            Doesn’t mean I still don’t want to play a game of classic quake from time to time. I own about 30 id games on Steam. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • My Johnson
      • 11 years ago

      I wish Steam had a Linux client.

      • danny e.
      • 11 years ago

      I wish Steam would run out… of steam….. and die.

      actually i dont mind the idea at all.. its a good idea, the only part i’m opposed to and have ever been opposed to is a game that will not run without steam installed.

      if i buy a game on dvd, i should not have to install a dumb program.

    • no51
    • 11 years ago

    So.. basically a pseudo oem/retail vista for less than 100$?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This