Vista Retail or OEM

[Splash]

They charge £300+ for a retail version. You are then 'Allowed' to change components willy nilly to your hearts delight. How is it fair for them to charge that amount so you are 'Allowed' to change mobo etc many times?

Because those are the terms of the license. It's not rocket science.

I agree that when buying a version of Vista that it should only be used on one PC at a time. But to charge £300+ to do so, just so you can change hardware time after time is beyond.

Those are the terms of the license. It's not rocket science.

No way Retail is worth £300+ compared to an OEM version!! Just so you can upgrade hardware as and when required!! It is just another way for MS to make more money from the consumer. There are people out there dull enough to pay £300+ and by doing so MS will continue to charge such high amounts.

Those are the terms of the license. It's not rocket science. Getting the message yet?

I am dead against piracy but i can see why people do it. I have always bought my OS's and various software. I just disagree with having an OEM and a Retail at such a huge price difference with such hard restrictions (That MS don't really adhere to anyway).

All well and good, but in breaking the terms of the license agreement you are no longer entitled to use the product.

Overclockers are a big company and it is relevant, that is why i mentioned it.

Amazon are an even bigger company, and they're still selling retail.

They have noticed that most people are buying OEM, surely that tells you something?

That their target market are system builders? Possibly that their target market is people like yourself who is happy to break the terms of the license because they can get away with it?

As for buying budget and expecting Deluxe, that is MS all over!! They used to do that with Flight sim etc etc. Another way for them to get money off of us. Why can't the make one OS with one price? They could do, easily! They make millions in profit every year so don't tell me it is expensive to produce an OS and not get much profit!! That is a joke!! They could easily make the OS more competitive in price. They don't have to hike up the prices!

I'm sorry, you lost me there - you think it's somehow unfair of them to sell products with more features for more money? Do you walk into a car dealer and say "I'll take that Ferrari, but I think it's fair that I should only pay the price for that Fiesta over there"? (I know, the car analogy sucks but I'm trying to put this in big, friendly terms so that people understand what I'm saying)

I have never heard of MS taking any tom, dick or harry to court for breaking the EULA. I very much doubt they would as for a start the re-activate 99% of the time and all they are really concerned about is (a) people buy the product and (b) they make efforts to stop the piracey kingpins. They are not interested in the average guy in the street like your or I.

That's as may be, however the fact that they haven't taken you to court for breach of license doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it. What if all of a sudden Microsoft decided to be more hardline and enforce the license (and in all honesty I really wish they would, then this discussion would be moot as it's purely about what you think you're allowed based on the fact that you can get away with it) and refuse point blank to reactivate your license key the next time you upgrade? Would that be fair? Or would they be being mean because you were too tight to spend the cash on a license with the features you need?

They have never refused to re-activate an OEM for me or anyone else i know.

See above. This may be the case at the moment but they would be well within their rights to do so.

I have a cousing that works for Ebuyer and he has said that Vista OEM flies out of the company compared to retail. So, wether people admit it or not, most will be using OEM and reactivating it. Enough said.

No, not enough said at all. I can throw the Amazon (again, I'm sure in terms of stock turnover worldwide they trump both eBuyer and Overclockers) link in again if you like. The ability to purchase OEM licenses through the retail channel is a privilege, not a right. If Microsoft were to feel that enough people were taking the mickey they could easily withdraw that privilege and you'd be stuck paying retail prices, and I suspect lots of small scale system builders would go out of business. Would you like that on your conscience? Mine's clear.

[kalniel]

They've often talked about such things and our German division does actually 'rent' MSware whilst we buy it. I can't see it being a big hit with home users though in all honesty.

I think it's close to being acceptable - at the end of Vista's life cycle I can definitely see it being so. Gamers are beginning to get used to paying for a Live subscription, we're all used to paying for a broadband subscription, and now people are buying bundles of stuff as well. I can quite imagine someone buying a years subscription for a 'home gaming/internet' package - including windows, broadband, Live, VoIP, modem etc.

Heck, just scale back windows so that the offline version is really basic and is for a nominal fee, and make the fully fledged version via online subscription.

[directhex]

They could easily make the OS more competitive in price.

to compete with whom?

[Splash]

to compete with whom?

Suse, of course! Why else would they have made the big investment?

[Koolpc]

to compete with whom?

To be more competitive. To be more reasonable.

What i find is that the only people that really think that MS are doing the right thing with their pricing is the ones who have actually stumped up the cash for the Retail products!! They realise that they have been had so have to defend MS!!

People are breaking a 'licence' that benfits MS only. It is there so they make more money buy getting people to buy OS after OS if they change key components!!

Why make OEM and Retail versions? What is the main aim of that? I will tell you, to make more money!! Simple. That is why i am saying they are greedy. They could easily make one version (I am taliking about Retail v OEM) that could be used again and again on 'One' PC. There are a 'Few' on here that always come down on the side of MS because they were fooled into paying out such extortionate (Bad spelling) prices for a Retail version!

If MS could only make one version, be it retail or OEM and at a reasonable price that could then be used as many times as possible on one pc then i am sure the activation argument would not be so bad.

MS are a multi Billion dollar company who could afford to make their OS 'More' affordable to the average PC user. And if people voted with their money then i am sure prices would change, as i am sure they will anyway.

OEM Vista is by far a bigger seller than the Retail version.

Pointless us arguing on here about the rights and wrongs of the activation process as (A) EULA is a joke (B) Most people have never heard of it and hence just ring up MS to get their OS re-activated (Even though it is printed on the box, who reads it?) (C) MS never follow the letter of the EULA as they always reactivate OEM's. I know loads of people, family students (Uni) that have bought OEM and have gone on to reactivate without any problems.

Vista is an awesome product but one price should be enough when it comes to Retail v OEM. There should be either one or the other. If they want a separate one for system builders then do so, but make it unavailable to everyone. They were forced to make it available to everyone.

If you think Retail is worth £300+ then good for you. I don't. OEM is what i choose. I keep it for one PC only. My wifes PC has her own separate version.

Licensing was only developed so microsoft could keep squeezing money out of the consumer.

[Paul Adams]

There seems to be a focus on the ability to transfer a retail license to a different PC as opposed to OEM which has no privilege, but nothing about the ability to get support from Microsoft.

£300 does not get you many hours' support from most support engineers for any company, so calls from end users for a one-off fee can work out as a loss to any company.

OEM is cheaper principally because the support cost is offset - someone other than MS is responsible for supporting the end user.


There is also mention (complaint) of the different versions of Vista available - these originated from 2 sources: customer requests (we want more choice) and government directives (thou shalt not force-bundle) - the latter means there is no chance for "one version to rule them all", sorry.

[directhex]

To be more competitive. To be more reasonable.

i don't think you understand what that word means. you can't compete with yourself. whom are they competing with? without competition, there is no reason to lower prices. blu-ray player prices went up when the death of hd-dvd was announced, due to the lack of competition

What i find is that the only people that really think that MS are doing the right thing with their pricing is the ones who have actually stumped up the cash for the Retail products!! They realise that they have been had so have to defend MS!!

wrong. i have never bought a retail operating system

People are breaking a 'licence' that benfits MS only. It is there so they make more money buy getting people to buy OS after OS if they change key components!!

component, singular, and that's the license. i respect microsoft's copyright, they respect mine.

Why make OEM and Retail versions? What is the main aim of that? I will tell you, to make more money!! Simple. That is why i am saying they are greedy. They could easily make one version (I am taliking about Retail v OEM) that could be used again and again on 'One' PC. There are a 'Few' on here that always come down on the side of MS because they were fooled into paying out such extortionate (Bad spelling) prices for a Retail version!

retail versus oem exists because oem companies like dell don't want to pay full whack for a product that includes not only transferability, but support from microsoft. they can customize the product, get their own support mechanisms in place, and pay a lower price to microsoft for the "reduced" product. because it makes sense at a business level

If MS could only make one version, be it retail or OEM and at a reasonable price that could then be used as many times as possible on one pc then i am sure the activation argument would not be so bad.

what activation argument? you can activate as often as you like, within the bounds of the license. anyone arguing otherwise is wrong and/or stupid

MS are a multi Billion dollar company who could afford to make their OS 'More' affordable to the average PC user. And if people voted with their money then i am sure prices would change, as i am sure they will anyway.

they could afford to do so, yes, but they have a duty to their shareholders to make a profit. if you can sell a second hand cpu for ten quid or fifty, and guarantee a quick sale on both, which do you opt for? a tenner, because you're just an all-round nice guy?

OEM Vista is by far a bigger seller than the Retail version.

absolutely. but not to the statistical noise on this forum - the real customers are dell, hp, et al

Pointless us arguing on here about the rights and wrongs of the activation process as (A) EULA is a joke (B) Most people have never heard of it and hence just ring up MS to get their OS re-activated (Even though it is printed on the box, who reads it?) (C) MS never follow the letter of the EULA as they always reactivate OEM's. I know loads of people, family students (Uni) that have bought OEM and have gone on to reactivate without any problems.

not getting caught is not the same as being legit. if you walk into a shop, pick up a chocolate bar, and walk out again, without being caught, that doesn't mean you were given permission - even though you didn't read the "no shoplifting" sign, even though the security guard didn't notice, doesn't make it legit.

Vista is an awesome product but one price should be enough when it comes to Retail v OEM. There should be either one or the other. If they want a separate one for system builders then do so, but make it unavailable to everyone. They were forced to make it available to everyone.

they DO have a separate one for system builders. it's called OEM. it's available to any system builder who wants to take on the license terms they need to take on (such as offering technical support to the person who bought the computer from them)

largely that's where the problem lies. if you buy a dell, and you have a graphics card issue, you expect tech support, right? how about windows issues? under the license terms, you simply don't have any recourse to microsoft, you should speak to dell - and that's a gamble they take by using oem windows on their computers (which makes them the people responsible for os support). should they continue to offer support for that "component" as time goes by, and you re-use the "component" in another pc?

If you think Retail is worth £300+ then good for you. I don't. OEM is what i choose. I keep it for one PC only. My wifes PC has her own separate version.

i don't think retail is worth £300+, which is why i've never bought a retail copy of windows. you shouldn't get a medal and a pat on the back for only doing the wrong thing a little bit (having multiple invalid licenses rather than just one)

Licensing was only developed so microsoft could keep squeezing money out of the consumer.

licensing protects content creators. if i write software, i want to offer it on a given set of terms, and i expect them to be followed. the same rules that protect microsoft protect linux companies too

[Clockwork_Killa]

I have to agree that MS could easily make their OS more affordable, 300 is a lot of money, you can buy a whole pc for that these days. The fact is they have the majority share of the PC market, lets face it you pretty much have to buy windows if you want to run anything, so its not like they have much competition. Does anyone remember what they did with ME? When they released the initial version which was terrible and full of bugs and security holes, and then released an upgrade a year later for a fee? That was utterly disgraceful, making users pay for something that they couldnt be bothered to get right the first time round. My point is MS are greedy, and they can get away with it because the average pc user has nowhere else to go.
I do however see why they have two different versions of their OS. I think it is fair that they charge extra for the support and the extra licensing flexibility, I dont see why the cost difference is so huge though, I fail to see how being able to install multiple times is worth triple the cost of installing on one machine only.

[Splash]

As was pointed out by Paul Adams there's the support facility. I've no idea what most software companies charge for support, but I can hazard a guess that £300 won't get you too much.

Windows ME was... a walking abortion, and most people acknowledge it. Bob was thankfully terminated with a warm bath and a knitting needle.

Your logic that Microsoft are greedy because they charge a price that the market will pay is interesting. I would argue that they're a business, and that that's what businesses do. If you sell bacon sarnies in a van by the road you charge what you feel the public will pay, don't you? Why are Microsoft any different? Is it because of the perception that they're a massive business and that they can afford to do stuff cheaper? How do you think that they became a massive business?

[Clockwork_Killa]

Youre missing my point, Im saying that the public will pay it because they have no other real options and that MS could easily charge less whilst still making a substantial profit. Also whilst ME was a monstorus failure on every level, the fact that they were charging people to fix their own mistakes only serves to highlight my point about them being greedy.

[directhex]

Youre missing my point, Im saying that the public will pay it because they have no other real options and that MS could easily charge less whilst still making a substantial profit. Also whilst ME was a monstorus failure on every level, the fact that they were charging people to fix their own mistakes only serves to highlight my point about them being greedy.

you can have 100 quid, or 75 quid. which do you pick?

[Clockwork_Killa]

you can have 100 quid, or 75 quid. which do you pick?

I see your point, of course they are going to want to make as much as possible, what Im saying is that there comes a point where it is no longer a fair price and that they are using their monopoly of the market to command said price. When there is no competition, you can charge what you like.

[Splash]

It's not a monopoly though, is it? Buy a Mac. Play with a flavour of Linux (really, it's not that hard an not everyone who uses it is a zealot). DesktopBSD is almost usable. Hell, write your own OS.


What you mean is that it's the majority player, and in this you're absolutely correct, but I'll be honest - outside of gaming and domain management I can get along just fine with Linux. I chose to pay for an OEM license of Vista though because I like it, not because the nasty man from Redmond came and stole my money.

Anyone who complains that there are no alternatives is either very blinkered or lying. I game on a PC, but I hear that there's some pretty decent consoles out there these days.

[DDY]

Oh the countless analogies and examples. , 158 posts, that took a while to read.

vs

Why make (SMART PRICE) and (EXTRA SPECIAL) versions? What is the main aim of that? I will tell you, to make more money!! Simple. That is why i am saying they are greedy. They could easily make one version (I am taliking about (EXTRA SPECIAL) v (VALUE)) that could be used again and again.

(ASDA... Walmart) are a multi Billion dollar company who could afford to make their (SAUSAGES) 'More' (TASTY) to the average (BANGERS AND MASH) (EATER). And if people voted with their money then i am sure prices would change, as i am sure they will anyway.

(SMART PRICE) (SAUSAGES) is by far a bigger seller than the (EXTRA SPECIAL) version.

(SAUSAGES) are an awesome (FOOD) but one price should be enough when it comes to (EXTRA SPECIAL) v (SMART PRICE). There should be either one or the other. If they want a separate one for (FINANCIALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE) then do so, but make it unavailable to everyone. They were forced to make it available to everyone.

If you think (EXTRA SPECIAL) is worth £3+ then good for you. I don't. (SMART PRICE) is what i choose.

(EXTRA SPECIAL BRANDING) was only developed so (ASDA) could keep squeezing money out of the consumer.

What I'm trying to get across, if you wanted extra special Lincolnshire sausages but think the price is unjustifiable, you wouldn't swap the price sticker from the smart price stuff even though it tastes the same. Would you?

[pauldarkside]

What I'm trying to get across, if you wanted extra special Lincolnshire sausages but think the price is unjustifiable, you wouldn't swap the price sticker from the smart price stuff even though it tastes the same. Would you?

I don't think your analogy works. The different flavours of Windows stem from the same ingredients (same cut of the animal, same recipe); some are just a little more spiced up than others. OEM and Retail differ in license and support but apart from that they are the same. Smart price and extra special are grossly different in terms of the ingredients and quality of ingredients used; I pitty both your health and taste buds if you fail to see the difference

I bought Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM. I don't need personal support from Microsoft. I don't need the ability to transfer my license beyond the terms of the EULA. The money I saved allows me to buy lots of extra special sausages thus keeping my taste buds happy.

Now you've made me hungry

[peterb]

I never thought I would rush to the defence of MS - but actually, compared with some software vendors, the licence is pretty cheap - even the retail version. Retail licence lasts for the life cycle of the software - which is likely to be at least 5 years, and when you consider that MS have only just stopped supporting Win2K (although I thik Sy updates are still be brought out) wil probably last longer than that - say 8 yaers. That works out at about £40/year. For the OEM, the license lasts the lifetime of the computer - say 3 years - so it is around the same price. For that you get product updates, enhancements, fixes etc.

Compare that wil some software vendors who require an annual licence fee or the softwarte stops working, and it doesn't serem quite such a bad deal.

(Although MS did propose an annual licensing policy with the launch of XP - but the corporate users objected and plans were shelved - if not dropped)