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."
Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Since Vista worked out so good for them they had to follow their 'success'. Seems like some people never learn.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
six nothing! BoingBoing has listed 20 new versions of Windows 7! [boingboing.net]. Just what I needed, Windows for Voting Machines, just right to make sure your favorite Republicrat gets elected!
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Funny)
The democrats have been using necromancy for decades to get undead vote, its all just balancing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Funny)
They could add a new help character patterned after clippy.
Tommy the Tomahawk cruise missile.
"Looks like you are planning on blowing something up today. How may I help?"
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Windows 7 Wall Street edition:
"The government is trying to stop you from giving yourself a big bonus. Cancel/Allow?"
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Informative)
Since just this morning [economicpopulist.org] apparently....if 10x my salary as a software engineer is a limit....
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Funny)
"Looks like you are planning on blowing something up today. How may I help?"
(operator inputs target)
"Estimated data download time: 1 hour. Would you like to watch McHale's Navy while you wait?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The man who owns the voting machine, owns the election.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (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: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:Obviously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:3 versions needed only (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're talking about the impossibility of "upgrading" from x86 to amd64, as it were, well, no - that should be possible. The problem is not to do with the boot environment but rather the way the system handles "thunking" and the way it handles auxillary files. Check out %systemroot%\WinSxS and c:\Program Files (x86) vs C:\Program Files or similar directory structures. It copies any dlls that the system wants to put in system32 in there, and then references it all in a massive lookup table, allowing mu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I would even try. Who wouldn't install 64bit at this point in time anyways? What's the benefit to not installing 64bit?
Anyone who
- Has an app that is partly or fully written in 16 bit and still wants to run it.
- Has hardware for which there is no 64 bit driver and still wishes to be able to use it.
- Has less than about 3GB of RAM on the machine. 64 bit addressing also means that for 64 bit code and data, twice as much memory is used.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple doesn't have problem with people still preferring to use Tiger, a lot of people do BTW and that is why iTools/iWork 08 (until 09) can be installed to Tiger adding their own frameworks and it keeps getting Quicktime/Security updates.
Apple doesn't start a "Mojave experiment" just to prove people that they are hallucinating. In fact, they do everything to keep low Mhz CPU people away from Leopard.
Besides trying to justify their move (a big move) to Intel for portable future, they never said anything bad
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.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Linus did not say that. His exact quotes are:
So Linus says that because of all the different things L
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Informative)
the inability to permenantly remove the toolbar warning that I do not have my security settings on
the solution is here [mydigitallife.info]
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very simple when you think of it.
An OS which runs fast, doesn't require an unreasonable amount of resources, and doesn't get in your way is good.
An OS which is slow, requires new expensive hardware, and constantly annoys you is bad.
Back when XP came out, the benefit over Win2K was negligible. And still is really.
So why is now XP getting declared as good when before it was bloated? Several reasons:
1. You can't buy Win2K anymore. It doesn't matter if it's the best thing since sliced bread when you can't get it.
2. Hardware advanced to the point that the extra resource usage over Win2K isn't really noticeable anymore.
3. Win2K installations have largely disappeared, so it's hard to make a comparison with it anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, Win2K does precisely what I want it to do: it provides a base system to install stuff on. It doesn't do anything terribly fancy, but I don't want it to. It also doesn't have activation. But it's not a realistic option anymore with everybody dropping support for it.
So when a normal user asks me which Windows version to go to, I will tell them to go with XP, which is light and fast and more compatible than Vista. The average person isn't interested in hearing me rant about how I despise the Fisher Price interface and how Win2K was so much better, because they can't get it anyway, and if they did they could run into a compatibility problem sooner or later.
They're asking about what should they get *now*, out of what is currently on the market, not what would I consider the ideal option if I could chain the MS programmers to their desks and force them to maintain Win2K for eternity. So that's the question I answer. When having a choice between XP and Vista, which is the light one? XP.
I bet that in 2015 I'll be talking about Win7 was nice and small, and didn't need those insane requirements of 50GB disk space and 16GB RAM.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely true. In 2001, screaming about the bloatedness of Windows XP was entirely rational because it offered virtually nothing over 2000, aside from a superfluous, crippled Home edition and the Luna themes. Over time, however, that has changed, and XP has benefited from a couple changes. The first change was the increase in the power of hardware that you mentioned, but IMHO the second was the introduction of Service Pack 2, a security update that seriously improved XP as an OS. It's easy to forget how insecure XP (and particularly IE6) was in its initial release, but SP2 showed the business world that Microsoft was finally willing to be serious.
Many have said that the same may happen to Vista. Were it not for the release of Windows 7 I'd agree, since it looks like Windows 7 is meant to supplant Vista, thus rendering it permanenly maligned. But that future attitude shift doesn't change the fact that some of the changes in Vista were ill-conceived, despite its many improvements. The increase in bloatedness was not necessary, nor was the "market segmentation" foolishness of Vista's (and now 7's) cornucopia of editions. Microsoft has done right by improving performance in Windows 7, but these many versions sully the image of an otherwise improved OS amongst educated consumers who understand that it's a marketing gimmick and not a feature.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when XP came out, the benefit over Win2K was negligible.
To be fair, though, XP wasn't really meant to be an upgrade from Win2k as much as an upgrade from Win9x. Most home users probably didn't even know that Win2k existed.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
rant about how I despise the Fisher Price interface
Ever since being confronted with the Blue Start Menu for the first time, the first thing I've always done to any Windows box that I had to use was switch it to "Classic Mode".
Incidentally, I hear Windows 7 is taking out this feature. Fuck them for that. I want my boring gray menubars!
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Informative)
WinME (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when XP came out, the benefit over Win2K was negligible. And still is really.
But back when WinXP *Home* came out, its benefit over WinME where incredible. For the average user, going for WinXP Home was an incredible improvement over what the user had to endure before.
Certainly for business user, switch from Win2k Workstation to WinXP Pro didn't make any sense. But there was a very strong incentive for a certain significant subset of the market (home users) to move to WinXP Home.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Informative)
Having used both I call tell you simply the difference. Video Games.
Back in 2000, my Dell came preinstalled with Windows me. Which was horrible. As soon as Win2k came out (shortly after) I installed it and it was fine. However it did have problems playing some games. Windows XP came out shortly after, which I then installed, and it had no problems playing anything. So while Win2k was good, it was responsive, did mostly what I wanted, it did have problems running some non-business type software.
Also another advantage that I did use back then on a built machine was dual processors. XP Pro could handle two. Win2k is only one. Also there were 64bit versions of XP, and not for Win2k. Today everything in hardware is 64bit, and 2 and 4 processing cores, none of which Win2k can handle I don't think (I know the software isn't there yet for 64bit or parallel optimized programing, but all the same...). So I guess there are quite a few reasons XP was superior to Win2k after all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not trying to troll, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why aren't you running some sort of AV on your Linux box? Surely you don't think you're totally immune? Granted, the update utilities on most distros make Windows look like a crying shame, but on to the next topic.
PDF readers. WTF? Mine opens in moments rather than seconds or minutes. I assume you're using Adobe Reader 8 or better, so you're using a 300MB installation to do what many others are doing in 3MB. Time for a change. I would recommend the one I'm using, but let's adopt the new "standard" an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I remember when XP came out people screamed (for over a year) "bloatware" "Suckware"....and now it is being touted as an great OS.
It's still bloated, and it still sucks, even though they fixed a lot of things during the years. (And the average computer it's installed on has at least twice the horsepower).
But now we're comparing it to Vista.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My only annoyance is I will need to buy it twice (64 bit desktop, 32 bit laptop)
Actually, you'll have to buy it twice because, desktop + laptop equals 2 computers, otherwise you're pirating windows, and I'm sure no-one on slashdot would do that.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not touted as a great OS. It's just the best Windows OS available. I'd have used Windows 2000 for several more years if it ran on my laptop from 2002. Unfortunately, only XP did.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Informative)
This is why we won't see dx10 on XP.
There was no architectural reason why DX10 couldn't have been ported to XP.
The reason we won't see DX10 on XP is because it was a gimmick to get you to buy Vista. They had dropped WinFS and so many other features. IE 7 had an XP port. Except for Avalon, the new UI, MS had no leverage to get people to migrate. Too bad they botched the initial release of DX10, because that niche market (gamers) were totally turned off by them dorking it up.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 7 Windows versions are all from the same foundry and mold, depending on how much you are prepared to pay they just have different disabilities.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh no, the difference is in the different Linux versions, all made by different groups of people.
Ubuntu Desktop Edition
Ubuntu MID Edition
Ubuntu Server Edition
Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Kubuntu
Xubuntu
Edbuntu
7 official versions of Ubuntu alone. You were saying..?
All free, no upgrade no limts (Score:5, Insightful)
What version of Ubuntu limits you to 1 gig of ram or only three apps?
The different Ubuntu versions are different configurations you can EASILY switch between if you want it to. I have NO objection to MS including an option to automatically configure your OS for various settings. Let it offer me a choice wether this is a single shared PC at home, or a PC at on a small network or a locked down machine in an office.
So your argument fails because you just don't have a clue about Ubuntu.
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Informative)
If we're playing server OS then Microsoft's offerings breakdown like this:
Windows 7 Starter
Windows 7 Home Basic
Windows 7 Home Premium
Windows 7 Professional
Windows 7 Ultimate
Windows 7 Enterprise
Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition
Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition
Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition
Windows HPC Server 2008
Windows Web Server 2008
Windows Storage Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008
Windows Essential Business Server 2008
Windows Home Server
And until recently you could also buy the server licenses with and witout Hyper-V. There's no way anyone can argue Microsoft aren't playing games with their various editions, the server OS editions are in-particular are selling a slightly less crippled version of the same thing but at least from Server 2008 onwards they're being honest, anyone who has a volume license gets two dvds one with 32 bit OS and one with 64 bit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
of your examples 4 are official products (with 1 not being intended for the general public & 1 being a server) so you have 2 main releases, which is like um XP and a server (like windows 2000). There are a few oem pakages (just like XP), but there are not 7 different versions each limited in a different way.
Re: (Score:3)
...and I could release Shotgunbuntu tomorrow. And you could release FunkyUbuntu the day after.
Try to get it through your head that each of the distributions would have a different market...a different ideal driving each. And those markets are very clearly defined.
-Ubuntu broke from Debian with the express intent of making a distribution that was more desktop friendly.
-People liked that, but wanted more server functionality...enter, Ubuntu Server Edition.
-But we need to it faster and fit better on a smalle
Original Sources (Score:5, Informative)
From Paul Thurrott's [winsupersite.com] site (which breaks each version down by feature--don't ask me how he got them).
Here's the most reliable source [microsoft.com] I can find where it is revealed in a Q&A with the general manager for Windows at Microsoft.
The AP [google.com] has picked it and quotes passages from the Q&A session. So I think the majority of this is coming from a Q&A session with Mike Ybarra, general manager for Windows.
Which gives me pause and causes me to wonder
Re:Original Sources (Score:5, Funny)
Which gives me pause and causes me to wonder ... are they really going to use the same marketing strategy they did with Vista?
Most likely. That 'strategy' is having the PC manufacturers preinstall it. That is how most normal people get Windows.
I am surprised that they didn't go with _7_ versions. They could have then called them Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy and Sneezy. Exercise to the reader to match them up with Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise, Ultimate, and Fully Cracked editions.
Re:Original Sources (Score:5, Funny)
I am surprised that they didn't go with _7_ versions. They could have then called them Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Exercise to the reader to match them up with Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise, Ultimate, and Fully Cracked editions.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Original Sources (Score:5, Funny)
Starter == Envy (== Bashful)
Home Basic == Wrath (== Grumpy)
Home Premium == Lust (== Dopey)
Professional == Pride (== Sleepy)
Enterprise == Greed (== Sneezy)
Ultimate == Gluttony (== Doc)
Fully Cracked == Sloth (== Happy)
Incidentally, this matchup shows that Windows is a sin no matter the form it takes.
Re:Original Sources (Score:4, Funny)
And Cinderella as the Linux version?
Cinduntu?
Re:Original Sources (Score:5, Funny)
but they know their business better than I do
Let's see...
"It's the guys who can touch us in multiple places that are Microsoft's top competitors rather than the guys who can touch us in any one place." -- Ballmer
"I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation. That's a software experience." -- Ballmer
"I'm going to f****** kill Google." -- Ballmer
Er... maybe you actually DO know better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do they make things so complicated? Are they trying to trick consumers to either over buy or under buy then have to shell out more money to right their original mistake?
It seems kinda sleazy to me.
I'll stick with OSX and Linux.
Yeah, as a Linux user, it's nice not to have things so complicated. I only have to choose between Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mandrake, Slackware, Gentoo, and-
Hmm, I'm having trouble remembering. But it will come back to me in a second!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does. If you don't like your version of Vista, you can still switch to Ubuntu (or SUSE or Mandriva, or Gentoo) for free.
Re:Original Sources (Score:4, Insightful)
OS X has two versions. Server and regular. Even most Linux distro's are broken into two groups server and workstation.
32 bit, 64 bit shouldn't matter to the end user. The OS should handle that by itself. Of course msft isn't that good.
Get your lawyers ready! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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:Starter Edition (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
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.
Yeah, I don't know where they got that data point in the article. From the original source [microsoft.com], Mike Ybarra mentions netbooks twice:
The second change is that we have designed Windows 7 so different editions of Windows 7 can run on a very broad set of hardware, from small-notebook PCs (sometimes referred to as netbooks) to full gaming desktops. This way, customers can enable the scenarios they want across the broad hardware choices they have.
Ybarra: At beta we've had a lot of people running our most premium, full-featured offering on small-notebook PCs (netbooks) with good experiences and good results. So we're pleased to see that on this class of hardware Windows 7 is running well. And of course we will continue to tune Windows 7 for performance as we move through the engineering cycle.
Nowhere does he say anything about the 3 app limitation and you'll note he mentions that in beta their most full featured offering runs on netbooks.
I do not know where PCPro got their information but I think this Q&A session is what started it. He seems optimistic about all versions of Windows 7 being usable on netbooks but who knows without getting field results (Vista capable, anyone)?
Re:Starter Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it's inherited from the super-crippled version of XP that was released into "emerging markets" that could only load up 3 applications at a time.
I was under the impression that Home Basic was intended for netbooks, and Starter for "emerging markets." Although I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to artificially limit what a netbook can do out of the box, to give the impression of a lack of power to drive people to buy a more powerful laptop with more expensive copies of Windows on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:Starter Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
I get your point, but my point is that they're taking out functionality that was already there and then charging less for it. So to rephrase your analogy as I see the situation, it would be if Nissan built all Maximas with leather seats and Bose stereos, but then at the dealership they stripped off the leather and replaced it with canvas (or whatever), and put in a crappy stereo using the excuse that only audiophiles really need nice stereos.
I don't mind paying extra to add extra features, but it seems silly to put in a artificial road block to make it seem like I'm getting more with the Home Premium Edition.
Re:Starter Edition (Score:4, Insightful)
I get your point, but my point is that they're taking out functionality that was already there and then charging less for it.
This is how everything is sold, though: for what the market will bear. If you can sell an interim product for $y, and do it by reducing the features of your higher product without reducing its sales then you're crazy not to kick it out. Last I looked Buick had two bodies, a SUV borrowed from another GM line and a sedan body which had a (small) variety of engines and a large variety of features which could be swapped around and which were then sold under different model names. And most automakers have higher and lower-positioned marques in which they offer the same chassis and engines but tweaked with different characteristics, costing the same or nearly the same to produce, but with wildly different sticker prices. (Everyone likes a car analogy, eh?)
I don't mind paying extra to add extra features, but it seems silly to put in a artificial road block to make it seem like I'm getting more with the Home Premium Edition.
No, that's business. What's silly is falling for it if you don't have to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
I get your point, but my point is that they're taking out functionality that was already there and then charging less for it. So to rephrase your analogy as I see the situation, it would be if Nissan built all Maximas with leather seats and Bose stereos, but then at the dealership they stripped off the leather and replaced it with canvas (or whatever), and put in a crappy stereo using the excuse that only audiophiles really need nice stereos.
I don't mind paying extra to add extra features, but it seems silly to put in a artificial road block to make it seem like I'm getting more with the Home Premium Edition.
It's called market segmentation - something companies have done for a long time.
For example:
Intel did it with processors - remember when some the 486sx was a DX with the floating point processor disabled?
Shippers often ship a next day and 2 day package to the local distribution point at the same time, but often deliver the 2 day only after it sits a day.
To your car analogy, cars sometimes will ship with features disabled and a key connector left out (even though the rest of the wiring is in place) such as f
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
So then what do you base your price for the product?
Do you base it on the "entry level user" that uses it for web/email/photos and toss in the Enterprise features for free?
Or do you base it on the Enterprise features, but then customers will complain "Why am I paying for enterprise features which I'll never use?"
To solve your manufacturing/distribution point above you could always package the full version, but only allow certain features to be enabled via licensing. However, managing license keys brings its' own set of issues.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be like Ford selling an "ultimate" F-150 that includes an extra cup holder and costs twice as much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble here is that you're acting like all of those enterprise features represent some huge chunk of the OS - and Microsoft is too.
I'm not assuming that it's a huge chunk of the OS, however these licenseable features could be considered to add significant value to the product. If the only features that are optional are remote desktop and domain support, then why raise the price the average consumer will have to pay? As they say, "My grandmother doesn't need those two features, so why make her pay for them?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aye, it's confusing. I'm guessing it's because, in reality, all versions of Windows aren't worth any more than a decent copy of MacOS (around $100), probably less, and having all these fancy "Enterprise" and "Ultimate" versions of things enable them to sell something for $300 which normally should sell for $100.
That make any sense? The packaging, production, and stuff included with "Ultimate" doesn't really cost any more for Microsoft to produce than the cheapest version (is BitLocker really worth that mu
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.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
See it's not hard to think of the positive. We don't have to be negative nancies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Windows Starter is quickly deleted and substituted for Pirated Ultimate in third world countries, so it's useless.
Sincerely,
A third world /. whiner (running Linux since 1999)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I worry that the people on Slashdot aren't really smarter than your average bears, otherwise I wouldn't keep reading the same, rehashed, "why are they making X versions, that's so dumb" comments over and over.
It's simple economics. And I've seen only very few people stand up and point this out. It makes sense with economic theory. I'm not making any comments on whether or not it's confusing, or on whether or not it's ethical, but just that there is a perfectly logical reason for it: money.
I suppose the best description of their economic practice is Price Discrimination [wikipedia.org]. It's not a new theory, and it happens all over the place (see airline ticket sales). In short, think of your standard supply/demand curve. If you sell one product, at $50, you lose out on the people who would have paid $75 for the product, and you also lose out on the people who will only pay $25 for it. By charging different amounts, they're capturing demand at all (or many more) points on the supply/demand curve, maximizing their efficiency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I stand corrected.. mods can mod my parent down.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a user can't be bothered to check what comes in the version of a product they are buying (whether it is a cell phone plan or an operating system), then they deserve whatever they get.
I don't understand why it is so outrageous that Windows offers different packages at different prices... "Choices???? Won't someone think of the children".
If they decided to just package it up into 1 version (or 2 for the hell of it), people would be screaming about the option to opt out of things they feel they don't need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Netbook hardware (basic windows runtime)
- Home (all the multimedia bells and whistles)
- Business user (enterprise functionality)
- Ultimate (multimedia toys + enterprise + some extras)
Certainly, 1, 2, and 3 are quite distinct markets with very little cross-over. So that's why; it's a "more is less...unless you've got cash to burn" philosophy.
...except that a netbook really isn't that meagre. Such a machine
is more than capable of supporting all of the multimedia bells and
whistles. Even the first Asus netbooks were capable of being MCE
extenders. That was one of the first things that Linux users did
with them (tried running MythTV on them).
Even before the netbooks were released I had my own netbook class
ancient laptop running MythTV as a frotend. I have a nother machine
of roughly that same class (AppleTV) serving as a dedicated frontend.
The only re
6 versions? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:6 versions? (Score:5, Funny)
I was expecting 7 versions to justify the names?? :-)
If that's how it works, Windows 2000 must have been a huge headache :-)
Re:6 versions? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. 6 x 7 = 42.
It's all making sense now.
6 versions - yea not hard to understand (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW - there will be 12 versions, not 6. They forgot to mention 32 bit vs 64 bit.
This is beneficial. Not everyone needs ultimate. Grandma who barely checks e-mail doesn't need every single bell and whistle. Emerging markets - those who can barely afford computers - I doubt they will be buying the latest and greater computers or the latest and greatest games...do you really need the latest and greatest in drivers if you don't have a video card for it? If 6 versions of windows is too complex I wonder what the author feels like when he goes to buy a car.
How about an ultralite version (Score:2)
a better idea (Score:2)
I didn't really do the Vista thing, but it was my impression that everyone was really fucking confused about all the different versions and which one did what, possibly including Microsoft guys themselves? So the way this reads, Windows 7 will be pretty much the same in this regard, except they'll ignore most of the versions for the purposes of simplifying advertising, pushing the "fancy/expensive" versions while the lesser versions probably are what comes pre-installed on your pre-assembled computers. Or s
3 applications?! (Score:5, Funny)
Starter Edition: A lightweight version for netbook computers, that will only be capable of running three applications concurrently.
Great, so one of the slots will be used by your Virus scanner, another by the Spyware checker leaving you with one slot left to run an app of your choice!
Why does "ultimate" need to exist? (Score:4, Informative)
Is there a reason Microsoft cant put BitLocker, AppLocker, Cornerstone, Direct Access, Branch Cache etc into Windows 7 Professional and then just have Enterprise be a volume license product (like XP pro corp was for XP pro)?
Is it purely a case of "those who need it can pay extra for Ultimate and get this stuff, those who dont shouldn't have to pay for it"? (i.e. money) Or is there more to it?
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.
Why am I not surprised? (Score:3, Informative)
Let's go to the top of the list. Enterprise is just for businesses purchasing bulk licenses. Ultimate is the same as Vista Ultimate, except you're only ever going to be dealing with Ultimate if you are a techie and know where to find it - it won't be sold through normal distribution channels.
The only two left are Home Premium and Professional. These are the only two actual consumers will deal with. They are exactly the same as XP Home and XP Pro; in fact, the only reason it's called Home Premium is because test users thought Home was a downgrade from Home Premium, so the kept the name. So there you have it: there are TWO versions of 7, and four versions for niche markets that will never be sold in stores. It's a lot like XP, where Home and Pro were considered the only two editions, but there were lots of others (Starter, MCE, Tablet PC, Embedded). But in the case, people were smart enough to understand that consumers only had to choose between two.
It's interesting that Gizmodo and Endgadget (and any places that quoted their stories) made all this very clear, but Slashdot had to go find the one site that had their facts wrong.
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I bought my T61 Thinkpad, I was forced to buy a worthless MS license. I opted to buy the cheapest MS license, Vista Basic.
I then proceeded to fdisk and install Ubuntu. So yeah, I was forced to bundle a Windows license, for which I care nothing about.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure this is a money thing... (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the ads allready : "there are 6 different versions, Collect them all ! "
Re:Sounds like another win for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are there going to be different 32/64 bit disks? How is it that Apple can make a installer DVD with 4 different platforms (Intel/PPC, 32-bit/64-bit) but the 800 lb gorilla still has a different "64-Bit Edition"? Are fat binaries that hard to work with?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that a lot of people will wait till XP support dies before wanting to switch.
I was just thinking about the Ubuntu family of versions Desktop, server, AMD64 desktop, AMD64 server, Kubuntu and how many more? Yes, I know some are based on Ubuntu like Ubuntu is based on Debian. I wonder how much confusion there is over Linux distros for end users, and can they see any difference between the Linux distros and the Win7 and Vista family trees.
I look forward to Ubuntu desktop, home premium media center edit
Enter the Balaclava light regiment...... (Score:4, Insightful)
"[...]Windows XP users will have to perform a clean install of Windows 7, however, while Vista users will be able to keep their existing applications and data with an upgrade install."
I guess many CIOs/expert users will balk at this... In the office, I am perfectly productive on a 3 years old AMD processor, 512MB ram and a 120 MB hard disk....why should I spend money on a new (...) operating system, more ram, more processor, a new version of office, all to do the same things as before, just not any faster?
Add to this that I cannot upgrade and pray, but I must Fdisk and install....then recover all the other programs, wait for them to say "sorry, no compatibility",restore old settings, rinse/lather/repeat.
...Oh wait....I cannot register XP anymore......$%&/£%@Â#!!!!!!!!!
Do not tell the redmond guys, but IMHO their onlt chance is working hard at a version that not only looks like XP, but WORKS exactly like XP. No use trying to impose a change for change's sake, people might say bad things like "Ubuntu" or "wine".
Re:Microsoft Is Ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)
So upon release, we could see TWENTY ONE different versions of 3 OSes floating around the IT world.
I know, it's a ridiculous situation. Thank heavens the free software world would never come up with something so pointless as a vast plethora of different versions of the same OS. :)
Re:Why the hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you are closer with the Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu, the main difference is that there are no features being "turned off" or "turned on" with any of them, just repackaging of which front-end apps you desire upon initial install. The differences between them is more clear from a consumer standpoint as they actually changed the names. They see Ubuntu and Kubuntu, they know they are different. They see Windows Vista... they don't know if it's Home Basic or Home Premium or what. If they went Pindows vs Hindows, instant recognition that something is different.
Re:Why the hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of those hundred distros cost $0 and you won't get a "reduced functionality distro" and a "less reduced functionality distro" and an "enhanced functionality distro", so you are free to choose and use whatever works best for you.
However in Microsoft case, you have to pay more to get the full monty.
Nobody would care if Windows would come in 100 versions, all free and all having the full functionality, the problem is not in the number, it's in reducing the functionality and asking for money to get the "full version". It's basically a crappy shareware type of distibution that asks money even for the basic product and asks for more mone for "enhaced version"
Oh, and remember that Windows now competes with Macs too, and Mac OS doesn't come in 7 versions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It goes something like this:
1 version (see OS X): PASS
2-3 versions (Home/Business/Pro): PASS
Pick'n'Mix (Many permutations, tailored by OEMs or power users - bit like Linux): PASS
[3 < N < Many] versions aimed at artificial price points rather than user needs: FAIL
(And remember, those 6 versions don't include server editions)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the only difference between those two main SKUS?
Whether you can bind to Active Directory or not.
Thats it. The hooks and APIs are even in Home for Active Directory, just disabled through registry keys and other such nonsense. So why not just roll it into one distro and be done with it?