Windows Vista To Come In 7 Flavors

Dionne writes "Microsoft is really milking it with this one: According to an Ars Technica report, there will be 7 versions of Windows Vista: Starter Edition, Home Basic Edition, Home Premium Edition, Professional Edition, Small Business Edition, Enterprise Edition, and Ultimate Edition." From the article: "Windows Vista Ultimate Edition is a superset of both Vista Home Premium and Vista Pro Edition, so it includes all of the features of both of those product versions, plus adds Game Performance Tweaker with integrated gaming experiences, a Podcast creation utility (under consideration, may be cut from product), and online "Club" services (exclusive access to music, movies, services and preferred customer care) and other offerings (also under consideration, may be cut from product)."

Comments

Distrowatch will need a new catagory...

[Omicron32]

So much for the anti-Linux crowd saying there's far too many distro's...

Anyone know what the major differences are between the versions then? Will schools (which is where I make a living as a sysadmin) and businesses require Enterprise edition for networks or what?

I should RTFA, eh?

Re:Distrowatch will need a new catagory...

[Sancho]

I don't think this is that far out of line.

First of all, knock off the "starter edition" altogether in most parts of the world. Even the countries where it exists, it's not used significantly. I'm socked Microsoft is even maintaining that idea at all.

Then, most people will only ever have to worry about the two home versions. The niches they fill are pretty much pre-established: most OEMs will deliver the watered down version, whereas most do-it-yourselfers will probably get the more advanced version. Same as XP Home vs Pro.

The biggest fragmentation seems to be in the business-oriented versions, but even current businesses have some fragmentation (2003 server vs. XP Pro.) Adding one "distro" and separating the "home pros" from the "work pros" isn't all that unreasonable. In fact, companies might welcome the default removal of the media player. Lastly, you get the Windows with Everything, including the kitchen sink--something that's necessary in case you want the business features coupled with multimedia features.

Truth is, 99% of the people will use whatever's handed to them. The only people who will have any sort of decision to make will be the power users and corporations, who can just run down the feature list and choose whatever meets their needs. Assuming the prices scale (and assuming/hoping that they are more-or-less bounded by the current pricing scheme) what this actually does is add more choice for how to spend your money, and add more gradations of money to spend. Really, it's a step towards the right direction in Windows, which would be allowing you to custom build the components you want and getting a price based on what you asked for.

This is going to confuse the hell out of people.

[CyricZ]

This is going to confuse the living daylights out of people, especially non-technical users.

Home users probably won't know what version they have, and that will complicate tech support calls of all types. It'll be difficult to help people calling for aide, regardless of whether they're calling Dell tech support or their nephew.

Developers will continually have to look up what features each system supports, and may very well just end up developing for the lowest common denominator in order to maximize support across all versions.

It was difficult enough trying to get average users to understand that Windows XP Home is different from Windows XP Professional. Hell, it's difficult enough to even remember all these names, let alone remember what features are different between each.

I see this as a good thing

[Kazzahdrane]

As long as the average home user can get a cheaper version of their OS without the complex functions they won't ever need/use. But then I seem to be in the minority anyway, I have a legal version of XP and think the OS is a piece of software well worth paying for. Nice to see from the article that many of the features us geeks buy Pro edition of XP for are going to be included in the Premium Home edition of Vista, and that the "Pro" version is actually going to be aimed at business.

Support nightmare

[orlinius]

Am I the only one to think that this will be a nightmare for people in the support industry.
I'm already having a headache with 7 different editions of Windows 2003 Server and what limitations each one has. Now 7 desktop editions. Obviously they like the number 7.

Can't they just do like Apple and have 1 Client and 1 Server edition of the OS. Even RedHat has only 3 server editions and 1 desktop edition.

Nooo, MSFT has decided to milk us all the way with a product segmentation strategy. Well, I guess that they need all the money they can get with their revenues being stagnant in the past several years.

Educated guesses

[Jarnis]

Ooo lets see... Educated Guess Time;

I predict that...

General people will buy the cheapest version that runs all applications. That version will be bundled with majority of the home computers. That will probably be the 'Basic' Home version. Don't expect it to be any cheaper than current Home Edition - MS has a monopoly, no reason to undercut in such situation. Premium crap will most likely be priced like today's Pro version, and will only sell to the crowd that today buys Media Center Edition.

If there are feature differences that matter to the applications (such as games or normal productivity apps) everyone will ignore crippled versions - bye bye starter ed. Dunno why MS can't figure this out.

Ultimate Edition will probably be sold to the Alienware/Dell XPS crowd that is too clueless. Rest will ignore the MS software clutter - especially since the ultimate edition has 'subscription' written all over it - the OS itself might work without one, but if it adds any downloadable extras, those will definitely want your personal information, and probably monthly fee sooner or later. I guess MS has gotten addicted to the mothly income it gathers from XBox Live subscribers. Someone has probably calculated how much they'd make if they could milk monthly fees from (some) Windows users as well.

As far as Warez goes - unless the 'Corporate Pro/Enterprise editions' are crippled in some way that matters to home user (lack of MCE features doesn't really qualify), that will be the version(s) that will make rounds - just like today. Additionally the 'Ultimate' version will be cracked to satisfy the 'Must have best version' crowd that previously cackled and downloaded warez versions of such gems as Win2003 Advanced Server for their home PCs so they could have the 'best' Windows. However, most won't want to bother with the extra bloat - or it will be ripped out of the Ultimate and plugged to a suitably modded Corporate version.

Just my 2 cents...

that's the point

[idlake]

Just to be on the safe side, everybody will buy the most expensive version they can afford. It's called "differential pricing".

Vista? What a JOKE

[brockbr]

Backstory
I make my living as a software architect for a large national corporation using the Win32 platform. I've got over 15 years coding & design experience.

I started out with Borland products, but slowly migrated to MS products due to the following factors:
1) Tools were built by the makers of the OS
2) API Documentation
3) Microsoft's desire to support the development community
4) OS stability - Laugh if you like, but at the time there wasn't much else to run on an 8088.

Screw The Developers
Recently, Microsoft has decided that the development community needed more "options" - In other words, let's screw all of the MSDN Universal holders into "Upgrading" to a new type of subscription - Therefore changing the concept of "Universal" to mean "Kinda sorta, but not really". You no longer can get "EVERYTHING" any more.

Screw The Consumer
Next - They're moving on to Vista (what a STUPID name) with 7 different flavors. They are "creating" a compositing desktop using the graphics hardware and touting it as the next "New Thing(tm)". Instead of using a bitmapped desktop, they've gone to this "new innovation". Uh - Mac OSX has done this since day 1. Nothing new here.

Along with "Vista", they are incorporating many "new" things - Security concepts that are really just hacks on top of a horrible idea.

Fundamentally, Microsoft has refused to accept that they themselves perpetuate the security problems they currently have. Most Win32 developers have been bottle fed to accept that the local user has admin rights. They code everything with this assumption. Because of this, Microsoft has had a VERY difficult time securing the desktop. Microsoft has no choice but to try and design around a problem of their own creation.

Fact is you cannot secure a machine where there is, effectively, no security. I say "effectively" because if all users have all rights, then where is the security?

Combine the Two Above - Rinse/Wash/Repeat
This long diatribe is really to sum up that Microsoft has ignored the problems for so long, and is not even prepared to address them with the development community. Even their latest development "security" attempts are too little too late for such an egregious flaw.

And now, to top it off, they're going to attempt to baffle the world with bullshit by releasing 7 versions of an OS - What a fantastically stupid idea.

The downward spiral started many years ago, and will end with people like me leaving the platform for something that truly performs - For something not built on technical quicksand.


(BTW - I type this from my G5 Mac in my home where the last remaining PC is serving as print server and remote desktop to host VS.NET so that I can work at home - They're are now 4 other Macs in the house)

Re:They left out..

[katsklaw]

"Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."

I think they were refering to stability, since DVD authoring/ripping or any other "feature" can easily be done 3rd party. Granted it would be nice to have a stable OS that can natively rip DVD's however once you look at the pricetag ... nice has a different definition.

It's also been my experience that "pirates" take what they can get and are more interested in distributing than actually using the software they pirate. It's also more of the thrill to have something illegal than what the capabilities are. How many pirates do you know that distribute FreeBSD?

I think it would be nice that Windows could readily run 400+ days uptime like some of their Unix based competitors that are free. Instead one pays $1000+ US for Windows Server farming abilities (again can be done for free). I've lost count how many "Windows Preachers" I've told "*nix can do that to and it's free". Why not ditch windows and give that $1000+ to a *nix programmer. You get exactlly what you want and do something about the worlds unemployment rate at the same time.

Re:Flavours?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a bald faced lie to say linux is hard to install.

Linux is hard to install on my computers.

Take my first home-built system, please: a 1.8GHz Celeron, 512MB RAM, onboard video, AGP GeForce4, Sound Blaster 5.1, using that wonderfully user-friendly, easy-to-install Ubuntu (4 or 5, same results):

On first boot, it defaults to displaying on the onboard video, giving a blank screen if the monitor is plugged into the GeForce4, even if the onboard video is disabled in the BIOS. It can be fixed, and it's not difficult if you already know how to reconfigure the X server.

On first boot, my nVIDIA card doesn't have the proper drivers installed. It certainly isn't difficult, but it requires a driver install, then a restart of the X server.

On first boot, my wireless card isn't properly detected. It can be fixed, and it's not difficult if you already know how to install and use Windows wireless drivers, and yours happens to be supported (in my case, not yet).

On first boot, my Sound Blaster 5.1 isn't detected as a sound card. It can be fixed, and it's not difficult if you already know how to recompile the kernel.

When installing Windows 2000, yes, I have to install drivers. The process for that: Double click, maybe reboot. You don't have to know a damn thing to do that. It is easier to install Windows 2000 on my computer; Linux is comparatively hard to install.

Note that I'm not saying that this is true for all computers, but it is true for my computer, and it disproves your assertion that it is a bald faced lie to say linux is hard to install.

I just said it, and it's true for me. Therefore, it's not a lie. If I'm a computer user who has a video card AND onboard video, and I try to install Ubuntu and get a black screen on first boot, yes, Linux is a bitch to install. If I'm a computer user who doesn't know how to recompile a Linux kernel to support specific, unsupported hardware, yes, Linux is a huge bitch to get to work. And if you don't have a wireless card that your distro of Linux natively supports, it can be a bitch to get it to work.

On my Dell? ATI video card drivers are bitchy. On my last homebuilt system? Sound is again a bitch to set up. The only computer I own on which Linux has never been difficult to install is my G3 iMac.

Many of those things aren't Linux's fault - hardware vendors are stupid, I know - but being faultless doesn't make it easier to install on some systems.

Unless you only mean that it's not difficult to get Linux to boot from the hard drive of a computer - and even then, there are problems that, for some, would make it hard to do - then no, for the most part and for many people it's not hard. But to say that "it is a bald faced lie to say linux is hard to install" just makes those who can't, for legitimate reasons, easily install it feel stupid.