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?'"
Windows 7 non-starter (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference (Score:4, Insightful)
If I remember right, starter is a stripped down version they just sell in developing countries at a big discount in at attempt to combat some piracy by giving users a low priced option. Home would just be home again like in XP. Business would be enterprise. It is the ones after that where it gets pointless and confusing. They would do better to stick with home and pro. Then an ultimate after that if they just MUST toss in extras.
another crippleware outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got big issues with artifically crippled software, where all versions come on the same install media.
It's like buying a car with 12 cylinders and having a switch hidden under the hood somewhere that controls the number of cylinders used. You buy the budget model, still have to cart around the weight of all 12 cylinders, but only get to use 4 of them.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Priced low enough that you couldn't be arsed to ask for a refund
Oh stop complaining (Score:1, Insightful)
Why guess? LOOK IT UP. If you're uncertain about Vista differences for example, there's plenty of info (Microsoft's site and wikipedia's entry for Vista) about what a certain version has or doesn't have. Yes some versions are useless (eg. starter), but Microsoft isn't trying to trick anyone, all the info is publically available. Has been for Vista and I'm sure Win 7.
Don't anyone bother doing a little googling before buying something? It's not that hard. One size doesn't always fit all.
Re:another crippleware outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy doesn't work. By stripping out features, an operating system can actually run faster. My only experience is with XP, but the Home addition stripped out features most people wouldn't need, and ran faster out the box. At an extreme, a highly-regarded (but of questionable legality) version of Windows called tinyXP speeds up Windows considerably by stripping out tons of features and services 90% of people will never use.
I prefer an operating system to come lean and fast, and to allow me the option to add features I want.
Re:The difference (Score:3, Insightful)
My one remaining Windows box runs Win2K. I see no reason to upgrade. It runs the 2 windows-only apps I care about and a couple of games.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The confusion is quite ridiculous. I mean really, when the fscking salespeople need to look up tables to determine which windows versions include which features, you can tell someone somewhere in marketing has screwed the pooch badly.
Maybe MS is preying on the fact that most consumers will be too stupid to know they're buying more than they need, or too elitist to buy just what they will use instead of getting "Ultimate". Either way, they make more money.
I have nothing against them making money, but hawking feature incomplete operating systems at rock bottom price just to artificially create the appearance of choice drives me nuts.
Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel's Atom processor is 32-bit only.
Re:another crippleware outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
But I find the Vista versions really objectionable. It's a dishonest scheme to milk PC buyers. The buyer wants to know what version is right for him, and the salesman says "you want a great looking interface for that great computer you just bought, right? Well, you'll need the Premium Edition. How about backups, you don't want to lose your files? OK, you'll need the Business Edition. Wait, you want backups and be able to create DVDs right? Great, I'll ring you up for the Ultimate Edition."
Re:how is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really have no problems with multiple versions, however...I do think Microsoft needs to cut down on the number of versions they had. The need for 'starter' is for netbooks or 3rd world countries, sure. Other than that, there should be just "Home" and "Business".
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The XP Starter edition was a crippled version of XP intended to reduce piracy in countries where people couldn't afford full-priced versions.
It was limited to 800 x 600 resolution, classic mode only - no theming, only three applications running, and a network restricted to an internet connection, not home networking.
The press at the time called it "cut-rate," "cheap," "crippled," and "futile. Users in emerging nations ignored it and continued pirating XP.
Expect the Windows 7 Starter Edition to have similar restrictions.
Not to be an Apple shill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why don't they call it "Windows Netbooks"? If "Windows Starter" is supposed to be the netbook edition, then they've managed to give it a name that actively misleads you as to what it's intended for.
Re:The difference (Score:3, Insightful)
New Boss Same as Old Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Survey says.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That never made sense to me. 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?
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Astro Turfin' (Score:4, Insightful)
(Sung to Surfing USA)
Everybody is turfing',
Cross the USA,
Everybody is turfing',
Turfing' USA.
What a non-story. Windows 7 should be the next service pack for Vista, but then they wouldn't get to charge for it.
More Crippleware from Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually pleased enough with Ubuntu and Gnome that I think I have installed my last Windows image at home, except for my work box, and that license is paid for.
MS has simply become too expensive for too little in return, and the options out there in Open Source, and even on the Mac side with it's more up front cost for hardware offer more bang for the buck with less stress and lost time spent fixing the OS.
Thanks but no thanks...
Re:Also: 32 and 64 bit (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Win7 is not purely 64 bit is beyond me
So you probably don't know about driver compatibility.
Re:It's not that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
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
So maybe they just need a name change.
Home
Home + Media Center
Business
Business + Media Center
Maybe make it easier:
Home*
Business*
* "And if you call in the next five minutes, we'll throw in Media Center for only $29.95!"
The reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second of all, all of those builds have been available since the early days of Windows 7. This isn't something they recently added in to 7025, it's been there the entire time as a carry-over from Vista.
Just because these versions are randomly available in a pre-release version of an OS doesn't mean they'll still be there by the time it's actually released.
Re:Not a surprise really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I always wondered why they didn't just call it Windows 7 or whatever code name and then distribute it with application packs, which would include application packs such as:
Because:
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The confusion is quite ridiculous. I mean really, when the fscking salespeople need to look up tables to determine which windows versions include which features, you can tell someone somewhere in marketing has screwed the pooch badly.
After being in the Linux arena for several years, I ran into a client that needed a Windows solution. CDW was their preferred vendor. I called them for a quote....and spent the better part of my work day on the phone with the account rep, and some odd sort of Microsoft licensing rep trying to figure out the correct licensing for a handfull of workstations, and two servers.
Strange combinations of eOpen licenses for workstations, and server CALs, but then special CALs for having more than 1 server on an SBS network, and then a license for SQL, and then Office under some other 'open' license, plus a few standalone apps from the office suite for computers that only needed Word or PowerPoint, etc...
What a huge fucking nightmare. With all the time spent dealing with the licensing, a company could probably save money if Microsoft had a 'dumptruck licensing plan' where you simply drove them a dump truck full of money every 6 months and you could use whatever software in whatever situation.
My linux licenses are so much easier.
Server: $0
Workstation: $0
Database (MySQL or Postgresql): $0
Jabber collaboration server: $0
Development workstation (with any combination of vi, vim, emacs, openkomodo, kate, eclipse, etc...): $5
(Actually, my linux sales rep says 'Just kidding stupid, it's $0')
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'd mod you funny ... but there's the nagging thought in the back of my mind that you're serious.
Monopolistic ploy: monopolize folks' time (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical Microsoft. Anyone remember Windows 3.0 real mode, protected mode, and virtual mode? At least there was some excuse for that. But it had the beneficial effect (for Microsoft) of soaking up most of organizations' development efforts just trying to target, optimize, and SQA products for three different kinds of Windows, leaving precious little bandwidth for work on, oh, UNIX or OS/2 or Mac OS.
I once worked for a Fortune 500 company where people literally used the word "port" to describe what needed to be done to keep a piece of software working under Windows, as in "We're porting the code from Windows 3.1 to Windows for Workgroups."
IBM did the same thing when they were dominant. Multiple versions of everything and small changes mostly for changes' sake. Big organizations couldn't afford to ignore IBM, and were kept very busy tracking all that stuff.
People build careers on the personal knowledge of the various changes IBM kept making, and people build careers now on their personal knowledge of the changes and variations in Microsoft products.
Lousy engineering. Great way to exploit a monopolistic position in the marketplace.
Developing markets (Score:4, Insightful)
the answer is presumably because they consider piracy to be wrong, but don't want shell out money for the full version.
Presumably, but if that's the case it's not terribly smart.
In most developing markets you'll find the consumers to be less savvy about high tech IP issues like copyright violation than other developed markets. Far less.
Hell, less than five years ago here you had a significant percentage of the online population in the states copying music left and right with no clue that it was even illegal, much less wonder about the morality of it. You still see that defense come up from time to time, too.
And MS expects some preteen in Singapore to know better? Good luck with that.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good post. Cuts to the heart. Freedom is about meaningful choice, and Microsoft hates that kind of freedom. Multiple versions and meaningless choices do successfully confuse the customers--but the twisted priorities remain. Profit uber alles and the OS as a weapon, not a tool.
Of course if you're building weapons you want to make them as big and hairy as possible. Microsoft has become much too big to fail and much too big to exist--as will be proven when the black hackers finally do their worst. Might happen tomorrow, actually. Has anyone else noticed that the latest Windows zombot is about two orders of magnitude bigger than Roadrunner (the largest supercomputer of the so-called good guys). We don't know what the real payload is--yet. And of course Microsoft doesn't care, since the shrinkwrap disclaimers of their EULA free Microsoft from *ALL* liability or responsibility for misuse of the weapons.
As opposed to Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which only has one version and a single standardized desktop environment. Clearly multiple versions of the same OS are bad.
Re:Developing markets (Score:4, Insightful)
More than MS should expect it from the Western 'cultures'. Have you seen the state of our education systems lately?
Re:Survey says.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, which is why I stopped using Windows at home due to their nonsense of licensing choices.
Not gonna get into the long list of Ubuntu positives and negatives but the point is we do have choices of what OS we want to use.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My linux licenses are so much easier.
Server: $0
Workstation: $0
Database (MySQL or Postgresql): $0
Jabber collaboration server: $0
Development workstation (with any combination of vi, vim, emacs, openkomodo, kate, eclipse, etc...): $5
(Actually, my linux sales rep says 'Just kidding stupid, it's $0')
A fully functional server: Priceless.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Misplaced anger IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
There still is a high percentage of people in the States copying music left and right - who don't give a c**p about copyright. Nor should they. "Piracy" isn't immoral...copyright is.
There is nothing inherently wrong with copyright. It's actually a great idea. Protect the creator of a good with an exclusive right so they can make their money off of it.
What's immoral is what has been done to that original great idea.
Now it's large record companies that hold the copyrights on the works its represented artists have created. They get a percentage which is determined by a cartel. And copyright has been extended by such insane lengths as to create a revenue stream for those companies that will typically last longer than the artist will live.
And they pay the artist pennies on the dollar. IMHO, that's why people pirate music. They know that 99% of that $15 they just plunked down on a CD will wind up in some corporate jackoff's wallet. The artist you actually like will probably get a thin nickel from your cash. So why bother?
What we need is copyright reform. If the artist got a fair percentage of the sale, and these useless bags of skin that sit between me and them were somehow cut out of the picture, I'd start buying music again.
Disclaimer: I don't buy music, but I don't copy it either. I simply do with what I already own until such time as the marketplace will allow me to buy directly from the artists I like without giving a penny to organizations like the RIAA. Soon as they die, I become a customer again.
Re:The reality... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh come on!
Those Starter Editions were;
Of COURSE they'll be there. They're classic Microsoft/DRM products!
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misplaced anger IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
...What we need is copyright reform....
A simple and straightforward reform would be to allow only real living flesh and blood persons to have copyrights and patents. No faceless corporation has ever written a song or come up with a new idea. It is only creative people within these corporations that do this and they should be rewarded, not the corporation. The title to and disposition of the so-called intellectual property could never be bought or sold or transferred in any way and would die with its creator. At that time the work or patent enters the public domain for all of society. The concept of the work for hire should be abolished. A creative person could make any agreement with any corporation they wanted to, as long as no title to a work gets transferred. All such agreements must have maximum time limit included. No corporation or other fictitious business entity should ever become the OWNERS of products of a mind.
Re:The reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, you can install SAMBA shares or host multiple VNC sessions even on a "Workstation" linux if you bother to install the required (free) software, and it won't do stupid crap like limiting your SAMBA share to 5 connections.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Not a surprise really... (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case how are they going to sell you features you don't want?
Re:Survey says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably it's because it's been proven in multiple courts of law that Microsoft has no problem with illegal acts that extend its market share. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Not announced yet (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys forget the "?" in the article title, like in the source you're citing.
The thing is, is that these SKU's may all be placeholders.
MS has not yet confirmed what the Windows 7 SKU's will be.
Almost all, if not all, comments here ignore this.
I sometimes don't like modern Slashdot, at all. :-(
Re:As opposed to Linux... (Score:1, Insightful)
As a recent convert from Fedora to Debian (today), let me tell you the difference: I bought my computer 14 months ago. At the point of purchase, I don't have to waste money on irrevocable, non-refundable (practically) purchases. The migration path from one to the other is simple. If I regret my choice, there is no harm to my wallet.
Choice is good and with Linux you have lots of choices. With Win7, once you open one door, backtracking to another door is going to cost you money. Even if you buy Windows Ultimate (retail) for your new desktop but one year later decide you would rather have a laptop, you'll find yourself cockblocked. You have software that is now worth more than the desktop and you can't put it on a new machine.
Re:Survey says.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, you fail at analogies.
In the case of Vista, every retail copy sold is physically identical -- every DVD contains every version. The "difference" between versions is merely encoded in the license key.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case for cars, where more expensive models actually include more equipment and more expensive parts.
Oh come on.... strawman (Score:2, Insightful)
Arguing that the difference between server and client operating systems is the same as the difference between Microsoft's various marketing attempts to make higher margins in different segments of the client operating system is a strawman argument.
The various flavours of desktop Windows are PURELY a marketing concept and have no basis in customer needs. You charge more for a so-called Ultimate version which has some extra doo-dahs, a little more for Business so you can do a Citigroup on businesses and a basic price for low margin OEM marketing speak Home Premium, and finally, you attempt to make a buck off OEM makers in areas where everyone pirates Windows in any case with Home Starter, Home basic etc.
This marketing differentiation is one of the reasons why Microsoft is perceived, even if incorrectly, as becoming increasingly irrelevant in todays market. Paying more than a $100 extra for some doodah that you can replace with some freeware doesn't make you any friends.
Customers don't care. No one gives a shit why MS does this. All it does is enforce people's opinion that Windows is confusing, and above all "" doesn't just work.
Re:Misplaced anger IMHO (Score:1, Insightful)
If copyright is such a great idea, how come it's only for certain things?
When a plumber installs a toilet, he doesn't get paid every time you take a dump. If he wants to get paid tomorrow, he needs to install another toilet tomorrow.
When a carpenter puts up a roof, he doesn't get paid every time it rains. If he wants to get paid tomorrow, he needs to put up another roof tomorrow.
Then why should musicians be paid tomorrow for the work they did today? Why don't they need to have another concert tomorrow, just like the plumber and the carpenter need to work tomorrow?
That's why copyright is immoral. It treats one group of people completely different from everyone else, by allowing them to get paid tomorrow, next year, and even the next decade (coming soon: another copyright extension to make it the next century) for the work they did yesterday, even though there is no real difference in they work they actually did.
Copyright is not just immoral, it doesn't even make sense.
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
The various flavours of desktop Windows are PURELY a marketing concept and have no basis in customer needs.
Uh, market segmentation is pretty basic economics and common practice. See, for example, any car manufacturer charging $500 for a GPS unit or stereo when equivalent (if not better) models be bought off the shelf for 1/4 the price (but won't be quite as "integrated").
Heck, even Red Hat does it. They have at least 3 different licensing tiers. Any company that can do this, will do it, because they'd be stupid not to.
The idea that consumers would specially pick out Microsoft for criticism, when basically everyone does it, is laughable.
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that a Workstation Linux is preconfigured for a workstation but is otherwise the same as the server edition and both can be turned into the other one ... it is just a convenience and many simply ask which do you want to install and actually install the same system but with configuration changes and a different list of installed components (there is nothing stopping you turning a workstation into a server of vice-versa)
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)
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
Re:Survey says.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the majority of the price you pay for a car is not for the raw materials of the car and the work needed to put it together, but for the work needed to design the car, it's engine, and the parts that make it up.
Yes, the raw material / work per unit cost for Windows is a lot cheaper than for a car, but it's still the same: Adding extra features costs more money, because someone needs to write them, test them, document them, etc.
I'm not a big fan of the Vista split up the way they did it - i especially hate that Vista Business does not include Bitlocker, which is a bad thing for small businesses without SA. Also, the split up between Home Basic and Home Premium is stupid. Ultimate is okay - it adds the business features to a home version, so i can live with that.
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying this doesn't happen in other business, but it is a bad practice nonetheless.
Why ?
Person X wants feature A and is prepared to pay price P.
Person Y wants feature A and B and is prepared to pay price 1.5P.
Person Z wants feature A, B and C and is prepared to pay price 2P.
Company Q can take a single product, and with minor changes, deliver A, B and C. The company maximises their revenue and minimises their costs. The customer gets the features they want, at the price point they were prepared to pay and a perception they aren't paying for features they don't need (which cost more). Everybody is happy (or as happy as they're going to get).
It's a textbook example of capitalism and the free market, which is why it's so common.
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because the product being sold already has features A, B and C. In fact, as someone pointed out, there is a cost of disabling the feature, so the version with only feature A should be more expensive. So in fact you are telling your costumers - or the ones who can think anyway - they're idiots.
Secondly, it is not as easy as saying person X wants feature A and is prepared to pay price P. Things are much more complicated than that: people have usually a general set of expectations of what they want in a product - specially one as complicated as an OS -and the value they should pay for it. There is a marketing effort to convince people their expectations will be met by a product only with feature A, or perhaps the most complete with features B and C, and it is worth of paying whatever price they ask for it.
To cap it all, free market and MS don't go very well in the same post. MS have a lot of control over what they put down their costumers throat, since they have a monopoly. The real problem with free market is that it is a fictional, theoretical construct. The real market is usually nowhere like that, and people should know the difference.
Re:Oh come on.... strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said it was identical, I was just pointing out that if you say to the average joe "Install linux!"
Then don't say that. Say "install Ubuntu", or "install Fedora". There, problem solved. I mean, why the hell would you even bother to point them at "50 different variants" when the vast majority of those are either poorly or completely unmaintained, have no long term support option, or aren't targeted at new users?
Oh, and for the record, there most certainly is *not* 50 different popular variants of Linux. I can count *maybe* five... Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, and Debian. That's *it*. Of course, there are a couple other niche products out there, like Gentoo, but what idiot would recommend that to a newbie? Hell, even DistroWatch [distrowatch.com] only lists 10 "major" distributions, and I would strongly suggest they're reaching after #5. I mean, who the hell has heard of Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS?
Re:how is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Abcd1234 is right, saying "Install linux!" to anyone is like saying "Install Windows!". Do you mean XP (home, Pro, etc) or Vista (home, business, ultimate, etc), perhaps Server (Standard, you get the point).
Most Linux Distro (the ones I know of anyway) have a server and a desktop edition. The only difference between these is usually that one comes with GUI (or a desktop as most would call it) and the other does not. These titles pretty clearly state what you get. This is done for the user, because technically they are the exact same thing. One just comes pre-installed with more packages than the other. If I were so inclined, I could install server edition and later install the packages that would make it desktop edition via the package manager.
Lets not even mention Linux though, this is about Windows.
Just citing off the top of my head, a difference between Windows XP home and Pro, you cannot run a group policy editor, and you cannot manage permissions for files (unless you use cacls or icacls via command line). Remote connections to your disks or desktop are severely limited, and I'm sure there are many other things as well. This isn't just a matter of some application not being included. Some of the applications and/or services have simply been restricted.
I'm not saying these are bad things, most users are better off not being able to touch file permissions via the gui anyways. My point is, how in the world are you supposed to know that from the name? It would be better off called "Windows XP limited networking and filesystem management edition" The problem with these complicated changes to the OS, is that there is no easy way to explain the differences via the title, short of describing the extent to which they are gimped... but who in their right mind would call their software gimp?! *cough* ;)
Re:It isnt the only crippleware they make... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because when you buy Enterprise edition, you don't buy Terminal Services as an application server, only for administration. Of course, the software is already there, so it's not like they need to ship you a CD to install something extra once you buy TS licenses.
Of course, if they never wanted to use TS as an application server, they probably could have saved themselves a lot of development costs. Why would they give it away for free?
It's a little like getting trial version of everything, or have extra software installed that is "locked" until you put in a serial number. Lots of softwares do that. The general idea is, extra features cost more to develop, so they cost more to purchase. It's easier to deploy everything together (especially if some features are allowed limited use), and then just charge extra for licenses.
I mean, I work for a software company, and that's what we do. We have maybe 10 different features. Some of them took a lot of time to develop, so if you want those extra features, you pay extra for them. The serial number controls what features are turned on, so we only have to ever deploy one app or one version to the customer. If the suddenly need a new feature, they send a check, and we give them a new key. It's easy.
That's basically what Microsoft is doing with TS.