Microsoft is dropping the price of Vista Ultimate - both full and upgrade - as well as dropping Vista Home pricing. In some emerging markets (i.e. developing nations) the Redmond gang is dumping upgrades entirely and selling the full version for upgrade prices. This is all suppose to happen when Vista SP1 rolls out. Full Story here
In my humble view that is all well and good, but there are two big issues still left basically untouched by this move. Number 1, Microsoft OS’s are overpriced still and number 2, Vista is not a big enough improvement over XP to justify the cost.
My first point first. Compare a $1,000 computer from 10 years ago and a $1,000 computer today. Then a 15″ CRT, now a 17″ or 19″ LCD. Then maybe a 20GB IDE HD, now 500GB SATA HD. Then 128 or 256MB Ram vs 2GB Ram today. Then maybe a 500Mhz Pentium II or Celeron chip vs a dual core Pentum or AMD chip now. Then 8 or 16MB Video Ram vs 512MB Ram today. Then you got a single CD Reader usually with maybe a 8X CD burner if you go lucky. Now you get dual DVD burners in a $1,000 box. Then 2 USB ports vs 8 USB ports now. Then a ball mouse vs an optical now. I could go on and on, but you get the point. My point is that in 10 years hardware at the same price point as improved by a factor of 10 or more in every area.
Now compare Windows 98 to Vista. Is Vista a 10 fold improvement over 98? Sure it is better, but is it 10 times better? Add in the fact that Vista cost double what 98 cost to buy and I think it would be fair to ask if Vista is 20 times better then 98. The answer is definitely no from where I sit.
My bottom line point is that Microsoft has not improved their software in the last 10 years as much as hardware has improved in the last 10 years. The gap in advancement / performance vs return for the money is made even worse when you factor in that in the same 10 years Microsoft has doubled the price of comparable software while the cost of equally improved hardware has dropped.
The gap between software development / improvement vs increased software cost is true for software in general though. Is Word 2007 10times better then Word 97? Sure it is better, it is prettier, but is it 10 times better. Personally I think not. I am not just picking on Redmond about this either. The same can be said of Adobe Photoshop 5.0 vs CS3. Better yes, ten times better no. Back to Microsoft though for most obvious example of my point / theory. Compare Outlook 97 vs Outlook 2007 (which by itself cost almost as much as a office suite), yet the base software functionality is the same. Simply put, over time software improves, but it does not improve as dramatically as hardware, yet the cost of comparable software almost doubles. That is a fundamentally flawed market and one which I think open source and net based apps are going to help resolve / eliminate in the next 10 years. If Microsoft wants to stop this tide I think they have to really drop prices - I personally think $100 is fair for a OS - and really innovate. They are unlikely to do the first as Windows is their cash cow, and I do not think they are capable of the second. Microsoft markets, buys and copies, they rarely innovate.
The innovation issue brings me to my second point. Compare XP vs Vista functionality. This one is a short one. XP gold, buggy, security flawed, XP SP2 less buggy, mostly plugged, but works with all most every piece of hardware in the world. Vista gold, buggy, slow, incompatible, and somewhat more secure. Vista SP1 as I understand it still buggy, a bit quicker, still incompatible with some devices, and still a bit insecure. Add in the fact that the rumored XP SP3 is suppose to get XP to a Vista level of security then you are really down to just a interface debate. Aero is nice, but it is not $300 nice.
Originally Vista was suppose to be uber revolutionary but Microsoft could just not get it all to work. As XP got long in the tooth, Microsoft pulled out a lot of innovation as I see it to get Vista to market. Even after a almost a 5 1/2 year gap between OS’s (late 2001 to early 2007) in my eyes Vista really is not much more then XP SE even if the kernal is all new. Nice interface, plugged some holes, a bit more secure, but not much more as XP is still alive and getting extended support from Microsoft.
If Microsoft wanted my opinion, and I doubt they do, I would say lower the prices to where the new OS is not a big cost jump or make it so much better that the cost seems unimportant. Their current move does neither in my book. Maybe Windows 7 (the Vista replacement) will deliver what Vista promised, but we will be lucky to see it before the end of 2010 I think no matter what Redmond says. They have too much invested in Vista to move on to Win 7 before a 3 year run.
