View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Mon May 05, 2025 3:36 pm
Author |
Message |
Oceanblue1
Has a life
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:53 pm Posts: 9
|
I am pretty sure official price for W7 after 31 dec 2009 is £149
The only reason it will stay £65 would be if it doesnt sell. Can't see that happening with all the positive reviews and general forum consensus.
Besides, competition from Chrome is still far far away.
|
Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:52 pm |
|
 |
RossDargan
Has a life
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:27 pm Posts: 35
|
From ZDNet via CNET Not saying its gospel or anything, but most places are reporting that home premium will be selling for around £65 - any I haven't seen any mention of it going above that - not sure if it makes any difference to your decision. Windows 7 is a lot faster than vista:)
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:54 am |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
PC Pro benchmarks say otherwise. PC Pro ClickyThe GUI might "feel" snappier, but that's where the improvements end.
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:22 am |
|
 |
RossDargan
Has a life
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:27 pm Posts: 35
|
hmm, not seen that before but I do question it a bit as it was based on the RC, not RTM and the test's appear to be based on highly CPU intensive things, not regular day usage like opening a browser (where delays are really noticed!) Ross
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:46 am |
|
 |
big_D
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm Posts: 10691 Location: Bramsche
|

The RTM benchmarks in c't seem to show that it is on a par with Vista SP2 in general terms, which is, in most tests, marginally ahead of XP in terms of performance - on a Core i7 machine... Waking up from sleep, all of them managed between 9 and 11 seconds. The two times for the boot are to desktop and display a website and to desktop and start playing a video. It is the way the desktop responds to the user which makes it feel faster. With 7, much like OS X, once the desktop appears, the user can start working, whereas in XP and, to a lesser extent, Vista, it means that the user should be able to start doing things "shortly". The automatic defragmenter also doesn't work as hard in the background, letting files fragment more, before shuffling them around, as they have found that for fragmented files with large fragments, there isn't much of a gain by defragmenting them, so the large fragments are left alone until it gets to a critical point. MS have also reduced the number of mouse clicks to carry out certain tasks, which means that the user feels things are done quicker, because they have to do less.
_________________ "Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari
Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:28 am |
|
 |
okenobi
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm Posts: 4932 Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
|
If you're coming from XP (like me) 7 would appear to be a no-brainer. Perhaps from Vista it's a different story. But I'm far from the only one who has been using XP or 2K and completely ignored Vista.
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:34 am |
|
 |
okenobi
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm Posts: 4932 Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
|

 |  |  |  | big_D wrote: The RTM benchmarks in c't seem to show that it is on a par with Vista SP2 in general terms, which is, in most tests, marginally ahead of XP in terms of performance - on a Core i7 machine... Waking up from sleep, all of them managed between 9 and 11 seconds. The two times for the boot are to desktop and display a website and to desktop and start playing a video. It is the way the desktop responds to the user which makes it feel faster. With 7, much like OS X, once the desktop appears, the user can start working, whereas in XP and, to a lesser extent, Vista, it means that the user should be able to start doing things "shortly". The automatic defragmenter also doesn't work as hard in the background, letting files fragment more, before shuffling them around, as they have found that for fragmented files with large fragments, there isn't much of a gain by defragmenting them, so the large fragments are left alone until it gets to a critical point. MS have also reduced the number of mouse clicks to carry out certain tasks, which means that the user feels things are done quicker, because they have to do less. |  |  |  |  |
Very interesting Dave. As a former salesman and (very) amateur psychologist and philosopher, I have to say there's a lot of truth to "perception is reality".
|
Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:37 am |
|
 |
Oceanblue1
Has a life
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:53 pm Posts: 9
|
Ross, u r right that W7 is £65 recently, but it has already gone up to £80 in most places. That was a special offer price for pre-order (it was actually £50 right at the beginning but the uptake has been so strong, that price is going up and up).
The point was that once it is officially released on 22nd Oct, pre-order discount no longer applied. And after 31st Dec 2009, it will go upto £149.
Unlike other products, retailers cannot discount from the official price too much as MS have great financial muscle and iron clan legal contracts with reseller.
|
Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:42 am |
|
 |
saspro
Site Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:53 pm Posts: 8603 Location: location, location
|
The reason we can't discount software is that our buy price is only a couple of pounds less than the retail. In most retail markets theres a big profit (usually 200% or more) so things like clothes shops can do 50% off sales and still make a profit. In the IT industry the profit margins are usually less that 5% (with software more like 3%)
|
Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|