Windows OS production/selling scheme screwing them over in the eyes of the general consumer?

Now, before I get completely destroyed, I am a Window's guy, I used to work in the Mac store, I've dabbled a little in Linux (and may again someday) but for the most part I am a Windows stan, with saying that I also know that computers with Windows sell more than OSX in the long run however, the way that Apple sells their OS (as in the free updates) has struck me as particularly genius. Ever since I worked in the Mac Store, I heard the perpetual ooh's and ahhs from the potential customer when I (or another representative) would pitch the idea of an OS you only need to buy once, and free updates, when they come out.

Not saying that the way Windows does their selling is not working because it clearly is but, I feel like for a lot of general consumers(as in the not-so PC savy) it's discouraging when they fall behind in terms of OS, especially when everyone around you seems to have moved on and sometimes not really so (people have just bought their computers)..I feel sometimes like the OS lacks optimization cause there's a lot of extra BS that you can go through and cut manually to make your experience much more seamless. For example, I have a netbook, and it came pre-installed with Windows 7, it was a complete and utter waste of time, there was no possible way, that it could run properly, slow cursor movement?? I'd have been much better off watching a slideshow. It wasn't until I went in and disabled a boat load of features and things like unneeded start up processes that I could get a near bearable experience on it..(Planning on installing Windows XP on it in a second.) It's things like that that kind of discourages a windows audience, and the causual PC user..

I understand from an IT perspective that if you're going for a computer you want it to be a certain way, but from a business perspective, I only see the added need to recalibrate as a loss.

Am speaking too soon?

 

The netbook is sluggish because, duh, it is a netbook. It is not the OS failing, it is the OS with that specific hardware fails. Or, you can say it is a fail product.

Compare the number of devices and models that use windows versus those use mac, and factor in the price difference. Some people would rather spend their time tinkering rather than paying extra and vice versa.

 

Thing is, I am one of those people. My whole issue is that like I said before its not easy.. Which is why to some people its a turn off.

 

They're the third category that OEMs are depending on when they make subpar products: cheap and/or gullible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sure OS updates are free, but Macs already charge a premium for the hardware, so the cost difference is more than made up for.

 

That's what I'm saying, it's mainly a discussion of psychology more than a discussion of business. It's like how much is free updatable software worth in the eye of the common consumer? You'll notice my topic is a question.

 

Wel we all want free stuff no doubt, so the key is to find a justification for the increased initial price. Though I don't think the average Joe needs or even wants to update their OS all the time, so I'd say that free OS updates may not be as attractive as it sounds. I for one don't care for it at all.

 

I agree with this because I would definitely say OS updates are MOST TIMES one off. IE, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8. That's the way I see it.

 

It's a matter of business, not just psychology, because with Apple, the OS maker and the hardware maker are the same company, and with Windows PC's, they aren't (except for the Surface line). Microsoft isn't going to give you unlimited access to future versions of Windows because you bought a high-profit-margin laptop from Alienware, because Microsoft isn't the one getting the profit margin from that sale.

 

Imo this is how they'd get the market, by making necessary agreements and making it so.

 

What incentive does HP have to sell a $600 laptop with a free upgrade for future versions of Windows instead of an otherwise-identical $500 laptop that doesn't, if the increased profit margin will just go to Microsoft instead of staying with HP? Sales would probably be better with the $500 model, and if HP's profit margin is the same either way, it's going to make the choice that increases sales.

 

OS X only runs(*) on Apple hardware. The OS cost is bundled in. OS X is designed to sell Macs.

OS X Mavericks: System Requirements

If you don't have what is on that list, your Mavericks upgrade will cost you whatever a new Mac costs. (Macs are not free)

Discouraging for you maybe. Lots of people here are on Win7 still, happily. Some are on XP. By choice.

You have not specified anything about the issue, but slow Windows is typically a sign of inadequate hardware and/or a poor software install. Here in the USA we have pretty much abandoned netbooks in favor of tablets, so I don't know anything about their specs anymore. It probably uses poor hardware with an OS install junked with bloatware because the vendor is selling them practically at a loss just to get rid of them.


(*) Officially

 

I stated at the beginning, I'm fine with Windows. A colleague and I were having a discussion about the schemes for both Windows and Mac,he stated that those were Mac's selling points (consider the first post a straw man argument if you will). The comments I made were no reflection of my thoughts whatsoever aside from the Netbook anecdote, and the poor optimization for Windows 7 on it...(why even sell Windows 7 on Netbooks???) I do love tinkering with my computers to get the speed I want/need.

 

Keep in mind that BOTH products have life cycles.

You may be able to upgrade your Apple OS to a certain degree, but at one point it won't match the hardware requirements for the newest software.

Honestly speaking this is what is happening with Microsoft OS's as well. Lots of machines just plain don't have the oomph for a new MS OS.

Microsoft give you the choice to install the latest and greatest if you want... but it's not really going to help more than once or twice usually.

The same will be true of most macs.

Most of the time the price premium of ONE mac (example mac pro at $2600 is less hardware than a $1400 premium PC laptop... thus the cost premium of the OS is $1200) is a lot more than buying a windows upgrade or two.

Apple is marketing their "upgrades" as a "free" benefit, when reality speaking they are sticking you right away with the tab for OS upgrades. (and then some)

Microsoft charges you for upgrades as they come... but they don't get the $1200 markup to start with.

Regardless of what Mac you buy... PC with the same hardware and two Windows upgrades is still insanely less than the equivalent mac.

What we are talking about is two sides of the same coin with different "spin" language put on it.

That being said... MS has made it clear with Office 365 that they would prefer to move to a monthly fee model... don't be surprised if Windows (and frankly Apple) follows suit. (Adobe is going there too.)

 

I have to disagree here. Since Vista, other than ram quantity, hardware seems to run better under subsequent releases. My Gateway P7805u that came with Vista ran great. It ran even better under Windows 7 and since I upgraded the CPU to a C2Q Qx9200 it would have run even better under Windows 8.x. The scheduler was improved for non Numa chips.

 

Gotta agree with this, we're seeing a reverse trend in terms of hardware requirements, nothing drastic, but it's no longer do or die when it comes to upgrading hardware and a new OS.

 

However, you are two upgrades up the tree.

Anyone remember the fun of upgrading a company from XP to Win 7 (skipping the troll release of Vista) only to see more than half of their machines slow to a crawl?

Those 1GB P4s even upgraded to 2GB were like molasses in January in MN.

Anyone actually try Mavericks on minimum hardware? Its not fun.

I will acknowledge Win 7 being a significant efficiency upgrade from Vista... but then again I don't consider Vista or Win 8 to be real upgrades to anything. They are troll releases.
(Windows 7 is Vista minus the legacy and beta code... something they should have dropped long ago and what Windows 95 should have been.)
(Windows 8 is a tablet OS with a red-headed desktop portion tacked on.)

 

I also do not like Metro.

S/N

Thank you everyone who posted...you have loaded me with more information in my "YOU'RE PAYING A PREMIUM FOR MID RANGE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE DOESN'T MATTER" argument.