Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Windows 7 or Vista 
Author Message
Has a life

Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 9
Reply with quote
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
Profile
Has a life

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 35
Reply with quote
From ZDNet via CNET

Quote:
We’ve been doing some investigating, friends — making phone calls, demanding answers. And it was worth it. We can confirm something very few people get to confirm: British shoppers aren’t going to be totally shafted over software pricing for once. Full versions of Windows 7 Home Premium are going to cost us half as much as they cost Americans.

In the UK, full versions of Windows 7 Home Premium — not an upgrade edition — are going to cost around £65 ($106). That’s less than the price the Yanks have to pay just for an upgrade version — $120 (£72) — and about half what they’ll have to cough up for a full version — $200 (£122).

Amazon.co.uk is already selling the full version of Home Premium for £65, and Play.com is selling it for a little more at £75, but with free delivery. Incidentally, this is the version that includes Internet Explorer 8 — the Windows 7 E editions have now been scrapped


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
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
RossDargan wrote:
Windows 7 is a lot faster than vista:)

PC Pro benchmarks say otherwise.

PC Pro Clicky

The GUI might "feel" snappier, but that's where the improvements end.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:22 am
Profile
Has a life

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 35
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
RossDargan wrote:
Windows 7 is a lot faster than vista:)

PC Pro benchmarks say otherwise.

PC Pro Clicky

The GUI might "feel" snappier, but that's where the improvements end.


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
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
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...

Code:
                     Local Copy             Copy from Server
                Large File  Small Files  Large File  Small Files   Boot
XP SP3             500         620          942        1088        45/45
Vista SP2 32       499         550         1702         997        28/30
Vista SP2 64       495         564         1776         983        27/30
W7 32              507         688         1140        1098        26/24
W7 64              505         660         1521        1106        31/35

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
Profile ICQ
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 4932
Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
Reply with quote
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
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 4932
Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
Reply with quote
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...

Code:
                     Local Copy             Copy from Server
                Large File  Small Files  Large File  Small Files   Boot
XP SP3             500         620          942        1088        45/45
Vista SP2 32       499         550         1702         997        28/30
Vista SP2 64       495         564         1776         983        27/30
W7 32              507         688         1140        1098        26/24
W7 64              505         660         1521        1106        31/35

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
Profile
Has a life

Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 9
Reply with quote
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
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:53 pm
Posts: 8603
Location: location, location
Reply with quote
Oceanblue1 wrote:
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.


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%)

_________________
Support X404, use our Amazon link
Get your X404 tat here
jonlumb wrote:
I've only ever done it with a chicken so far, but if required I wouldn't have any problems doing it with other animals at all.


Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:46 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.