Slashdot Mirror
MS Confirms Six Different Versions of Windows 7
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."
I have never understood why Microsoft does this. Well, beyond the "make more money" aspect but that's because they're a company in the business of making money. The thing is, I just don't understand _how_ this leads to them making more money. In my mind, having one-and-only-one version of your operating system seems so much more efficient and cost-effective. It reduces the cost of pressing the discs, packaging, marketing - everything. It reduces the headaches of support (it outright eliminates the question of which version of the OS a person is running and thus what features they have access to, for example). In every way, it seems like it would cost Microsoft MORE to offer different versions of their OS which surely more than offsets any additional money they may make from doing it so I just don't understand why they do it. I'd love for someone to offer a flash of insight to explain what I'm obviously missing but, on every level, it just seems like the wrong choice.
What's so hard to understand? First off, they list - in a concise paragraph - what each version is. Second off, grandma-sue who barely knows how to use e-mail is not goign to perform an upgrade so she doesn't need to understand. People who perform upgrades, a task that is timeconsuming, will either 1) research, 2) pay someone (or ask a friend), or 3) buy a new computer and take what it comes with.
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.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
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.
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?
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.
Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
from TFA:
"[...]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".
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
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.
But it's not so cut and dry with that. For some time PPC WAS great...then Intel became the better choice for them. Apple moved on with the times. Microsoft just doesn't get what people want, and that is definitely not 6 different versions of Windows.
Do they know how to read? As much as I am glad to see their new MS-repeatfuckup, I wish we had fewer distros of linux. And, irony of ironies, probably the same people going HAHAHAHA here are to be found in the recent post where prophet Linus declared that billions of distros were greatest thing around on the monkeysphere.
Because Windows is an OS, Linux isn't. Linux is a kernel, around which hundreds of OS's, commonly called "Distributions" have been built. If you apply that logic to the Windows Kernel, you are dealing with a lot more OS's as well, from Windows NT 3.1 to Windows Server 2008 and even OS/2 Warp 3.0 for Networks.
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.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
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.
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
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..?
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.
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.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.