MS Confirms Six Different Versions of Windows 7 758
darien writes "Microsoft has confirmed that Windows 7 will be offered in six different editions. In a seeming admission that the numerous versions of Vista were confusing to consumers, the company says that this time its marketing will focus on just two editions — 'Home Premium' and 'Professional.' But the reality is more complex, with different packages offering different subsets of the total range of Windows 7 features."
Starter Edition (Score:5, Interesting)
Starter Edition: A lightweight version for netbook computers, that will only be capable of running three applications concurrently.
Maybe someone can educate me here: are EeePCs and subnotebooks so underpowered that they can only run three programs at a time? It seems like a purely artificial limit repackaged as a "performance" feature.
Re:Sounds like another win for Apple (Score:1, Interesting)
I am pretty sure nobody here on
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's wrong with this though? It's standard practice that when companies release a new version, they tell you how much better it is than the previous version. Just as how with Apple, for years PPC was great, but as soon as they switched to Intel, it was "Buy me, I'm Intel".
The only thing that's a problem is if a company ends up urging people to buy a previous version of their product, not a newer one.
Re:Get your lawyers ready! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm already considering this. I just got a new laptop with Vista Home Premium. In numerous places, Microsoft has touted the security of Vista, yet Home Premium doesn't even include the Local Security Policy MMC snap-in.
Without the basic tools to manage my own local security, it is impossible to set up my laptop securely. This wasn't removed because Home Premium is incompatible, it was done as an up-sell opportunity. I've searched Microsoft's website extensively and there is little mention of the LSP snap-in being missing from Home Premium.
Re:Starter Edition (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. I have a 1000H and it's fine with excel, word, a few pdf docs & browser windows open. Seems to switch snappier than my aging stinkpad T40 for good measure.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
except that wonderful macos you tout comes with an additional expense of needing to buy the hardware along with it, which apple is the only source for, and thus also has revenue from.
so in reality, did it only cost $100?
or did you also pay them more because you purchased the hardware along with it, and they simply "hid" some of the cost of the OS in the cost of the hardware?
the only way you have a clue what apple OSX costs is the $129.99 version you can buy standalone, but again, you've already purchased their hardware, and thus potentially already paid more for the OS in reality.
Thai market for Windows 7 (Score:3, Interesting)
EXISTING COMPUTERS
If the computer goes in for repair, or to have malware removed, part of the service is an upgrade to the latest and best version of Windows the system will support. [Note that saving your data is not part of the service.]
All this is depressing, given that perfectly good Thai Linux distributions exist. The trouble is that Windows is all anyone knows. I have converted a few souls to Linux and they mostly end up liking it (especially on Netbooks) but it is an up-hill struggle.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want the long answer to that, read Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy [amazon.com].
It's eye opening, and it explains how tiered pricing works to maximize sales and profit.
Basically, the lower/crippled versions of the product are sold below production cost while the top versions pay a hefty premium -- the users which need the most features are subsidizing those who don't need them because those who don't need the features wouldn't buy the product for the original price.
Usually this is done in order to increase sales, and thus, make production runs benefit from scale. For example, when Intel made their Pentiums with and without a mathematical co-processor. Actually all the processors had a math co-processor, just that the lower versions had the connections to that part of the silicon cut by laser :-)
In the case of software it's similar -- the development costs are fixed, so you will try to sell as many copies as possible. The more you sell, the lower is the price of production per copy.
You may think this is a crappy system, but it actually works in everybody's favour: instead of producing 1000 units of a specialized product, the manufacturer can produce 100,000. The people who can't afford, or don't want full features have a product available for them, while the rich, or those who really need the features pay less for the product than they would for a specialized version.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Soon as this BETA 1 expires, I am changing all of my partitions over to ext4. So long, Microsoft. So long...
Re:Obviously.... (Score:3, Interesting)
if M$ used the Linux kernel for Windows [...] What sort of effect would that have on the OS?
It would have the effect of all existing Windows software not working anymore.
So basically indistinguishable from a regular new Windows release? ;)
Simple joking aside, I wonder how good a 'Mojave Experiment' using Linux+Wine would be in terms of fooling average Vista users... Based on reactions I've seen from simply showing people Ubuntu, I imagine pretty good.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Apple transition to Intel was about logistics more than it was about performance. PPC chips can be more powerful than Intel chips. The problem for Apple was that they had to custom design their PPC chip as the generic ones were not made for general consumer uses like playing media but were specialized for computational applications like modeling. Apple like any manufacturing company would only order enough chips to meet their forecasts. The chip maker (Motorola, IBM) would only make enough to meet Apple's forecasts. Neither company wants to be stuck with excess inventory.
Unfortunately, if Apple's sales required more chips, their chip maker could not keep up. Being a custom chip for one customer, the chip maker could not dedicate many resources for changes in schedule because Apple, even with millions of chips a year, would never be one of their high volume customers. So Apple went with Intel because Intel could keep up with changes because Apple would not be a small customer ordering more of a custom chip. It would be a small customer ordering more of a stock chip. If they couldn't sell to Apple, they would sell the chip to Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.
Sell them as separate apps! (Score:3, Interesting)
What ticks me off is not that they are charging more for these extra features - that's fine! I am all for being able to buy a cheaper version of something that doesn't have features I don't need.
But why the hell are they separate versions of the OS instead of applications I can buy?
Why do I have to buy media center edition to install the media center app - why can't I buy JUST media center for $25?
Why isn't touchscreen support a $5 option that OEM's can opt to get?
Why don't they sell Bitlocker as an addon for small business for $50?
These are great *applications*, and I don't have a problem with them offering a bundled version that includes a lot of them together - but why are they tying them to an operating system version? Someone explain to me how that isn't retarded.