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."

41 of 758 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously.... by ArIck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since Vista worked out so good for them they had to follow their 'success'. Seems like some people never learn.

    1. Re:Obviously.... by von_rick · · Score: 4, Funny

      The selling point for all the versions would be the same, "Buy me, buy me, I'm not Vista."

      --

      Face your daemons!

    2. Re:Obviously.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      six nothing! BoingBoing has listed 20 new versions of Windows 7!. Just what I needed, Windows for Voting Machines, just right to make sure your favorite Republicrat gets elected!

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Obviously.... by mdwh2 · · 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.

    4. Re:Obviously.... by robthebloke · · Score: 5, Informative

      the inability to permenantly remove the toolbar warning that I do not have my security settings on

      the solution is here

    5. Re:Obviously.... by vadim_t · · 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.

    6. Re:Obviously.... by rad_chad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Obviously.... by linhares · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Obviously.... by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh no, the difference is in the different Linux versions, all made by different groups of people.

      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."
    9. Re:Obviously.... by cjb658 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows 7 Wall Street edition:

      "The government is trying to stop you from giving yourself a big bonus. Cancel/Allow?"

    10. Re:Obviously.... by geordie_loz · · Score: 4, 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.

    11. Re:Obviously.... by vux984 · · 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..?

    12. Re:Obviously.... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, 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.

    13. Re:Obviously.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Obviously.... by RobBebop · · 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!

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
  2. Original Sources by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would hesitate to use the strong language of "confirmed" as the sites in the summary just link to other PCPro articles and it's all PCPro. I can't seem to find any really formal news release or website with Microsoft's official stance on this. I think this is a bad decision but they know their business better than I do.

    From Paul Thurrott's site (which breaks each version down by feature--don't ask me how he got them).

    Here's the most reliable source I can find where it is revealed in a Q&A with the general manager for Windows at Microsoft.

    The AP 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 ... are they really going to use the same marketing strategy they did with Vista?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Original Sources by dotancohen · · 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.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Original Sources by Dystopian+Rebel · · 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.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    3. Re:Original Sources by Rigrig · · 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.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    4. Re:Original Sources by fbjon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here you go:

      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.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  3. Get your lawyers ready! by scubamage · · Score: 4, Funny

    *TOTALLY* buying a 'windows 7' capable pc and suing when I can't run the most bells-and-whistles-ful version that exists. Anyone else game? We can start planning the class action lawsuit now!

    1. Re:Get your lawyers ready! by digitalunity · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  4. Starter Edition by Neeperando · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
    1. Re:Starter Edition by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, 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, 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)?

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Starter Edition by Microlith · · 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.

    3. Re:Starter Edition by Neeperando · · 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.

      --
      Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
  5. Why? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why? by furby076 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually - it is the "charge less money". They charge less for the reduced versions. So if ultimate is $300 and they only sell ultimate everyone pays $300. But if grandma only needs Basic features then why have her pay $300? Why not have her pay $200 and get only what she needs. Also, the lesser versions - since they have fewer features - will be less of a hardware hog meaning the computer hardware will be cheaper since they don't need to get the best.

      See it's not hard to think of the positive. We don't have to be negative nancies.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    2. Re:Why? by initdeep · · 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.

    3. Re:Why? by Silentknyght · · 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. 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.

  6. 6 versions? by Shome · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was expecting 7 versions to justify the names?? :-)

    --

    ~Once you have your choices narrowed down, the rest will fall into place.
    1. Re:6 versions? by ibwolf · · 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 :-)

    2. Re:6 versions? by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope. 6 x 7 = 42.

      It's all making sense now.

  7. 3 applications?! by Rik+Sweeney · · 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!

  8. Re:I'm sure this is a money thing... by polar+red · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see the ads allready : "there are 6 different versions, Collect them all ! "

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  9. Re:Why the hate? by downix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:3 versions needed only by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's money to be made selling 32-vs-64 bit editions? You are aware that if you buy 32-bit Vista, you can get the 64-bit version from Microsoft for free? The CD keys work on both.

  11. Re:Why the hate? by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  12. WinME by DrYak · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  13. All free, no upgrade no limts by SmallFurryCreature · · 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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  14. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, 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.

    --