Ha ha! Confusing!

I am sure I have no idea what I am talking about (I never do), but isn't the 'Vista Home Basic Upgrade' essentially the same as what Apple is rolling out with OS X.10.4.5.3.2.4.1? (What was that about Microsoft's Vista release versions being confusing?)

At $99, or even the splurge for $159 for the first Windows upgrade in a billion years, it seems like a heck of a deal compared to the $99 annual Apple tax. Or, as I said, I am sure I have no idea what I am talking about.

Now, I will admit that I am avoiding comparisons to Gnome or KDE. In that comparison, Vista versions are both expensive and confusing. Ubunto rocks, boys and girls -- or, it would, if it worked a heck of a lot more like Windows or OS X. [sigh]

I don't know what all the bitching is about; this is neither expensive nor overpriced.

Today, XP Pro (full) is about $250, and the upgrade is about $160.

hey is windows doing a thing where vista copies will only work on one computer at a time? i hope thats true providing that they make it so that i dont have anymore problems with my product key. lesson i learned the hard way children: even product keys have their limits.

Do you think upgrading from a..uh.. 'cracked' win XP pro installation would work?

Scott, I think a lot of people thought the XP pricing was expensive and overpriced. I am one of them. I have one machine that I built that I can't see spending $200 for the OS when I had a archive copy that works. I went in to many stores and looked at XP Home (couldn't find Media Center) and just couldn't justify paying that much for an OS. I have an unused license for a Dell laptop that justify's my use of my archive copy in my mind but I might try to use it to upgrade Vista Home Basic althought I'm not sure what I'm losing vs Premium.

Is it cheaper to get a Apple then build your own PC and add the OS? I think I might switch.
Apple charges $100 to upgrade, but you don't have too. This is better than no upgrades at all in 5+ years.
Apple also offers a family pack of 5 licences for $180 I think. This makes way more sense to me. If I decide to go totally legit on licences or if Microsoft forces me, it will be cheaper to by new machines(I have 5 machines). If I have to buy new machines I will probably go see Apple.
I've always assumed MS was inferior, but it made sense to use Windows because you could get it for "free" and I could build a machine for less than a prepackaged one.

inajeep, there certainly were a lot of people who thought the pricing of XP was too much, but there were *more* people who thought otherwise. I am one of the latter.

.........and that's what it boils down to: user preference. Since it's not a monopoly (like the cable company), they can charge whatever the market will bear.

Not a monopoly eh?

Sorry, someone had to say it.

this is all fine and dandy, but are we forgetting, 45% of all windows users are currently running an illegal copy? vista wont be much different. windows xp was supposed to STOP piracy and hackers broke that thought. vista will have the same flaws im sure. no one will want to pay for it, and many wont have to