Windows 7 To Come In Multiple Versions 821
Crazy Taco writes "Tom's Hardware reports on newly discovered screenshots that reveal Microsoft is planning to release their newest version of Windows in multiple confusing versions ... again. The information comes from the latest version of the Windows 7 beta, build 7025 (the public beta is build 7000), and shows a screen during installation that asks the user which version of the OS he or she would like to install. Who's up for guessing what the difference is between Windows 7 'Starter' and Windows 7 'Home Basic?'"
how is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
That would imply a product selection similar to Vista...
Re:Survey says.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:not the main problem (Score:5, Informative)
Except your car comes with all the features, it's just that they disable the ones you didn't pay for, and call the cops on you if you get them working by yourself.
(The Vista/7 DVD has the same content for all versions, your product key controls which version is installed. Thus if you choose to skip key entry at install time, it has to ask you which version you want to install.)
Re:Not a surprise really... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you can kind of do that with Fedora. Instead of downloading the full ISO, just download the 5-meg ISO image which contains just the anaconda installer. Then select a fedora mirror as your install server, and choose the package groups that you need as they are presented to you.
Only thing is they don't make it obvious where to grab the small ISO image. You have to browse through the the repository a bit. For example: "/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Fedora/i386/os/images/boot.iso"
linux (Score:0, Informative)
WINDOZE! i use linux. im better than you
Re:another crippleware outrage (Score:3, Informative)
It's more likely that they don't ship on the same install media (at least in this case), since they're likely compiled with different options. For instance, desktops want low latency premptive multitasking, while servers and (sometimes) workstations want high throughput, which could be done with a different config at compile time (it is on Linux, though the Windows kernel is a bit further towards the microkernel side of things).
It also used to be that a lot of closed source software for servers limited how many CPUs they could run on, which I'm sure was usually done with a #define in the code. Once you can run on 2 CPUs, it's usually pretty easy to run on 4 or 8, so this was purely a marketting ploy. This has gone out of style since multicore CPUs started becoming common.
It's not that complicated (Score:3, Informative)
If you really want to know the different, pop into add/remove windows components on Windows 7 beta. You'll see a motley connection of odds and ends relating to business and home use. Most of them aren't installed and are somewhat irrelevant to you.
Basic is baseline (like XP home)
Home Premium includes media center (like XP media center edition)
Business is basically XP Professional
Ultimate is XP professional + media center
They didn't actually add any new editions except for Ultimate. I am sure the home users will really be lamenting their lack of NFS client/server capabilities.
Most of the guification will remain and all the desktop essentials are now under the Live Essentials umbrella, so the versioning should be irrelevant to everyone except people on slashdot who make it into a massive philosophical crisis.
Oh my god! They've made spins of their operating system with a feature relevant to the market and usage scenario!
Oh my god! Media center costs extra!
Oh my god! enterprise-level networking features aren't included on my mom's compaq!
This is a COMMERCIAL operating system. This is similar to the complaint that Ubuntu and Kubuntu are separate distributions because they have different software sets except they cost a different amount of money because commercial systems COST MONEY.
Let's break this down further:
Basic is for low-end bargain PC's
Home Premium is for middle-high end PC's
Business is for Business PC's
Ultimate is for enthusiasts (like beta testers and people with pony tails and translucent panels on the side of their tower-- it exists because some people will pay for it)
By offering different levels of product at a different price point, they've made their product more accessible to people who would rather pay less and just have an operating system. If you use mostly F/OSS on your windows system, you should get Basic. It's not that complicated!
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Informative)
Where?
XP and Vista Starter edition were cut-price, limited versions for developing markets, to combat piracy. I've seen no evidence that Microsoft plans on making Starter a netbook version- that would be a bizzare branding change.
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:3, Informative)
Why Win7 is not purely 64 bit is beyond me - any recent machine can run the 64 bit version, any older machine should be running XP anyway.
There are probably some people who buy recent machines for performance or some specific features, but who still need to run peripherals for which only 32-bit drivers are available. My Mustek scanner, for instance. First they said they would never write Vista drivers. After lots of moaning from customers they finally did, but only 32-bit. Vista x64 requires 64-bit signed drivers for all hardware.
Re:still not POSIX?.. (Score:3, Informative)
You do know that Windows already has a POSIX subsystem, right?
Nobody really used it.
A pig with new lipstick (Score:1, Informative)
Re:a different number to go with that different na (Score:1, Informative)
Windows 95 = 4.0
Windows 98 = 4.1
Windows ME = 4.9
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows Vista = 6.0
Re:The difference (Score:4, Informative)
The very thought of Mac OS being a server makes me ill. X is based on BSD, why not just use BSD?
Because they have some nice tools for server management (gui (Workgroup Manager) and commandline (e.g. dscl)) that don't exist in vanilla BSD?
I'm just running it for a lab with less than 10 computers and less than 30 users, but for someone like me who is only a part-time administrator with other duties to my job, the Mac OS X Server tools are great.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The 945 chipset in my work Macbook can handle Aero just fine, and most Atom-based netbooks have a 945 as well.
The limitation would be the processor, and that's not going to affect Aero so much as it will the entire system.
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Some Atom models support 64 bit (200/300 series), some do not (N270 series).
Re:Survey says.... (Score:3, Informative)
"A much simpler explanation is that without tiered pricing fewer people will be able to afford Windows."
Considering that a Windows DVD costs maybe $0.25 to produce, I suspect that without tiered pricing people would still be able to afford it.
The real reason Microsoft have tiered pricing is so that they can charge people $200 for a couple of extra features that they deliberately removed from the other versions.
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:4, Informative)
That's kind of, sort of, not really true. The Diamondville core supports x86-64, but Intel is playing an odd game where they're disabling it on some processors for no specific reason. The Atom 200 and 300 series leave it enabled, meanwhile the N27x series disable it for no obvious reason. Meanwhile the Silverthorne core used in the Atom Z5xx series is more ambiguous; none of the products its used in support x86-64, but there's a lot of disagreement over whether it's actually a different core. The reigning belief is that Diamondville is just Silverthorne built to use the GTL bus, which means Silverthorne supports x86-64 all along.
So why would Intel artificially disable x86-64 support? There's the million dollar question.
I probably should also add that the Intel Core (1) is 32bit only. Replaced since 2006 by the Core 2, MS may not want Core (1) boxes limited to Vista, hence they still need a 32bit version
Confusion and Editions (Score:3, Informative)
Addressing the clearly biased and stupid summary, there's no need to guess; a Google search for "Windows Vista Editions" has a link to Windows Vista: Compare editions [microsoft.com] as the first result.
This outlines what the major differences are between the four main editions. I can only assume the poster isn't familiar with search engines. Yes, there are others, but they aren't for everyday consumers, so you don't need to know about them except for certain specific circumstances. If you meet those, look up the additional details on Technet.
That being said, I do agree that the number of editions is excessive, and should be reduced, not because I find it confusing, but because it's just unnecessary. I'd suggest reducing down from six to four, with only two of those as "mainstream" versions.
Windows 7 Home Premium (equiv. to XP Home, remove the Premium suffix) and Windows 7 Ultimate (equiv. to XP Professional). They can have their Business/Enterprise edition for corporate customers, and finally, a Starter edition for emerging markets. As such, the everyday consumer only chooses between two, business has their own one tailored for business networks, and the asian/middle-east markets have their thoroughly crippled edition that no one will buy.
For the record, XP is even worse than Vista, here's a list of XP editions:
Windows XP Embedded (not the same as below)
Windows XP for Embedded Systems
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP for Legacy PCs
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
Windows XP Professional Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005
Windows XP Starter Edition
It's possible I've missed some, and of course, this doesn't include region specific releases, such as the European mandated "N" editions.
This trend of having an enormous number of different editions didn't start with Vista, it started with XP, and isn't anything new as some would like to think.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? UAC is not in XP Pro, and it is in Vista Home.
When was the last time you used Windows?
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Informative)
Why would anyone put up with a hopelessly-crippled-to-the-point-of-being-nearly-useless version of Windows when they could buy a bootleg of a Pro/Ultimate edition on a street corner for almost nothing or even torrent it for free?
Because most people installing Windows are OEMs, not end users.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:1, Informative)
Right now, Vista is a complete flop for netbooks and the general consensus is that Microsoft must make inroads with Windows7.
Since only the most powerful (ie expensive) netbooks will have the graphics horsepower to handle Aero,
Not really. My Acer AspireOne handles Vista just fine, and Aero works on it as well. The AspireOne was going for $349 ($299 today), hardly what I'd call an expensive netbook.
Re:overrun with textbook MBAs (Score:3, Informative)
That's not how demand curves work. Not at all.
If you have 100,000 Joe Schmoes, and two versions, you can divide the Joes into two groups: those who can afford the pricier version, and those who cannot. If you only have the pricier version, you lose the latter group. If you only have the cheaper version, you lose part of your profits from the former group. By having both, you improve your profits.
In fact, in some cases it can be good if the Joes can't differentiate, since that way some of the Joes who can afford (but do not need) the pricier version will buy it.
The only problem with what MS is doing is that they're taking it so far that people feel overwhelmed trying to figure out what features they need, and end up going with the nice, simple Mac.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:3, Informative)
re:only allowing three programs to run at once...
I have a user at the office, who claims that he used to run a successful Microsoft-discipleship (my words, not his - based on his comments tho) software sales company (so he should know about basic technology), who refuses to have more than a handful of windows open. I had to remote into his house the other day, and I had several windows open (a firefox with tabs, two cmd.exe windows, wireless properties, printer dialog, etc - don't ask what I had to troubleshoot) and after I got disconnected, I called him to reconnect me. When I got back onto his box, he had closed every window except the remote connection one (actually, he did it while I was talking to him on the phone, waiting on the reconnect - he was muttering about all the stuff I had open).
So the point of my post (ignoring all my delightful parenthetical comments of course) is that most users are quite delightedly happy to only have a handful of windows open at one time. I have other users in the office who will constantly reopen internet explorer or firefox to look something up after having closed it not minutes before. I, on the other hand, frequently have upwards of a dozen taskbar buttons (you know, app stacking and tabs and the like increase the actual app-count) and they just get SO confused...
Of course, when I tried to introduce them to the concept of multiple pieces of software for the same purpose (a-la Firefox vs IE, OO.o vs MS Office) they thought I was trying to tell them that they had to change software. Alas for the sheeple...
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Informative)
I have some experience with this from developing countries. Sometimes it's nice to have licensed software, such as when you're an international organisation, a government body, a joint venture, or when your country sometimes does care about licensing issues. So people buy the cheap version to prove that they have licensed software. Then they buy a copy of the full version for $2 on the street corner.
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:3, Informative)
Backward compatibility. Sure you can run 32 bit apps on 64 bit....unless they're drivers...or contain 16 bit code....or rely on 16 bit code...or don't play well with WOW64....etc. There are businesses today that rely on hardware and software that simply won't run on a 64 bit system without a rewrite.
Re:overrun with textbook MBAs (Score:3, Informative)
"...divide the Joes into two groups: those who can afford the pricier version, and those who cannot. If you only have the pricier version, you lose the latter group. If you only have the cheaper version, you lose part of your profits from the former group. By having both, you improve your profits."
and what I said ...
"differentiate their output so as to take away as much consumer surplus possible under the demand curve" ... describe the same thing.
You described the mechanism, I summarized the effect.
Observe: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/45393/fig3.jpg [med.govt.nz]
"That's not how demand curves work. Not at all."
That's exactly how demand curves work.
Re:The reality... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah - but there IS a difference....
The "home" versions of Linux most times are focused on speed rather than stability. Not to say the "home" versions are not stable, but the first priority is things like multimedia etc. Also the focus lays on the latest and newest applications.
The "Server" versions are optimized to be rock stable and fast in things you could expect from a server. Multimedia has no high priority here. Also software is not the latest bleeding edge but proved and stable.
So - there is a reason you have two very different types. At the other hand the Microsoft versions are all the same. The only difference is the amount of services (software) added, and the amount of cash you have to deliver...
Actually the server versions of Windows are tuned differently too
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2009/01/08/why-do-people-think-that-a-server-sku-works-well-as-a-general-purpose-operating-system.aspx [msdn.com]
One of the senior developers at Microsoft recently complained that the audio quality on his machine (running Windows Server 2008) was poor.
To me, it's not surprising. Server SKUs are tuned for high performance in server scenarios, they're not configured for desktop scenarios. That's the entire POINT of having a server SKU - one of the major differences between server SKUs and client SKUs is that the client SKUs are tuned to balance the OS in favor of foreground responsiveness and the server SKUs are tuned in favor of background responsiveness (after all, its a server, there's usually nobody sitting at the console, so there's no point in optimizing for the console).
In this particular case, the documentation for the MMCSS service describes a large part of the root cause for the problem: The MMCSS service (which is the service that provides glitch resilient services for Windows multimedia applications) is essentially disabled on server SKUs. It's just one of probably hundreds of other settings that are tweaked in favor of server responsiveness on server SKUs.
Re:The reality... (Score:1, Informative)
Windows XP and 2003 are different bases actually, XP 64 and 2003 64 are the same though.
Vista 'Server' is 2008 indeed
Windows 7 'Server' will be 2008 R2
Re:The reality... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Survey says.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:4, Informative)
The RedHat systems are actually different levels of support as well as different pre-configured systems - what you are actually paying for is the support not the system (i.e. you actually get a real benefit by paying more)
Right. So you pay more and get more... just like the different versions of Windows.
Windows flavours are purely marketing and are there so some flavours can be sold more cheaply than others, they cost the same to design, build market and sell but the more complete systems can be sold for more
Given that the different versions of Windows come with different features, it's quite arguable from a conceptual point of view that they cost more (or less) to "design", depending on how you want to measure.
It's ultimately moot, however. The important point is that there's nothing unusual, special, or different whatsoever about a manufacturer targeting different price points with products that just variations on a theme. Anyone who's ever gone car shopping, will not be surprised that there are different versions of Windows with different features at different price points.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:2, Informative)
http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2008/09/03/aboutinternets/ [accettura.com]
Re:Apple does this all the time... (Score:3, Informative)
There is no OS X Workstation and OS X Server. There is OS X Desktop (which is the same version on consumer Macs) and OS X Server. The server edition comes in two flavors: 10 seat and unlimited.
Now if you got a Mac Pro, it might install different libraries and tune things differently than if you got an iMac or a MacBook Pro but it's the same version as the consumer grade. The utilities you can install might be different too.
Remember Apple's OS model is different. For the most part, you buy the machine and it comes with the OS. You can buy OS X as an upgrade but most of the time you're moving between full versions (10.4--> 10.5) not (Basic --> Home --> Premium). You can move from (Desktop --> Server) but most people do not do that unless they have a MacPro.
As for differences between OS X Desktop and OS X Server, the delineation is the same as Linux or Unix. The workstation could function as a server but is missing builtin server features. OS X Server has more services and features for running a server like user admin, iCal Server, etc. Theoretically you could get OS X Desktop to do everything OS X Server does with 3rd party apps by installing things yourself like Samba, Wiki, etc. However, it wouldn't be all built-in, would take longer, and you might be missing key components you don't know about. To get OS X Server, it's $499 (10 client) or $999 (unlimited). That's fairly straight-forward pricing.