The latest version of Windows 7 beta, build 7025 (the public beta is build 7000), shows a screen during installation that asks the user which version of the OS he or she would like to install, according to a screenshot from PC Beta.
The five versions of Windows 7 are as follows: Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate.
Microsoft learn not.
What should they have learned? If those have different price points, I don’t see the problem.
That’s the problem, there are far too many price points for Windows. I could see 3 SKUs, at most - A ‘Home’ version, which should have the features of the current ‘Home Premium’ SKU, a ‘Business’ version, which should be light, efficient, but have the networking backend necessary for business users, and a ‘Premium’ version which combines the two.
There shouldn’t be a ‘Starter’ or a ‘Home Basic’ SKU.
I agree, Microsoft should keep things a little bit simpler. Home, SOHO, Enterprise.
What should they have learned? If those have different price points, I don’t see the problem.
(1) confuses the marketplace (“Is that a good version of Win 7? I’ve heard that some PC’s don’t have a good version and I don’t want to buy one of those”)
(2) increases support costs for software publishers (“Ma’am, which version of Win 7 are you running?” “You don’t know?” “Right click the ‘My Computer’ and…”)
(3) encourages MS to develop features, withhold them, and then constantly try to sell you an upgrade to the OS if you buy anything less than the ULTIMATE version. (Which they won’t support very well, if Vista is the example)
Good points, I hadn’t thought about the increased support costs, that’s something that is definitely not good.
The Home Basic/Premium split probably exists purely so that places like Dell can sell an upgrade option for more than they would be able to get if they only effectively had a single version they could bundle.
I’m an advocate of Apple’s approach : one version. Take it home, install it, you’re guaranteed that it will contain the features you need. Every time MS introduces a new tier, they confuse people and fragment the user base.
There’s no need. Just split the difference on the price and offer a single SKU. I can’t -stand- having to do research to figure out which version to buy so that my networking will work but I’ll also have access to multiple processors … ugh.
To be fair, you can’t buy Starter; it’s for developing countries only.
And I don’t like Home Basic, but I can understand why Microsoft needs it. You need to compete with Linux on $299 computers where OS price is a huge deal, but at the same time you don’t want to just lower your prices across the board and give up tons of guaranteed profit. So you make a version that sucks but is better than UBUNTU and sell it for cheap.
I dislike it, but if I were in charge of their Windows division looking at the spreadsheets, I doubt I could argue with it.
Just rename Home Basic as “Windows 7 - Netbook”
I really don’t think Microsoft is worried about the average home user switching to Linux. My Dad has zero chance of successfully using Linux in his day-to-day life. He’ll upgrade to the next version of Windows and not even ask questions.
It’s a confusing mess to even people like me, a computer junkie and professional with over 25 years of experience. How the hell can “Joe the consumer” decide which version to buy when I have difficulty figuring out the 30 versions available (and yes, Vista really has about 30 version, not 5).
There should be one product with different install options, questioning the installer during the process. F MS! I’ve given up on Microsoft. Vista is crap and W7 sounds like more of the same.
I guess I’ll go with. . . hmmm. . .
reads list over carefully
XP Pro?
But seriously, yes, this is awful =/
People bitched about all the SKUs in Vista but I’m not convinced they really contributed its sales in the end (Vista, of course, did have its own share of problems).
Increased support costs are offset by increased total sales to be had by product differentiation so I don’t really see how it’s a net negative for MS even if there was an additional support associated with the additional SKUs.
Besides, there’s only 3 real SKUs for the Home User and 2 SKUs for the Business User to consider…I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out what version you need unless you have some very esoteric needs (Remember that Starter will only be marketed to developing countries). 99% of users will just get whatever version of Windows their PC comes with anyway.
Microsoft is worried about the makers of ultra-cheap computers (netbooks, but also cheap desktops) putting Linux on them, at the very least. I mean, we KNOW they are, because they took special low-cost licensing stands with XP on netbooks just to provide a viable non-Linux option.
Everyone knows that only a handful of geeks would use UBUNTU by choice, but there’s a much larger set of people who will use UBUNTU on a netbook if it means they can get the same hardware for $100 less.
Heh, whenever I see Windows “Ultimate” I think about some kind of Taiji version, or maybe Kyokushinkai. Windows 7 Supreme Ultimate Truth version, with full contact kumite! You have to sign a waiver for the install, and the IT support guy wears a black belt. Maybe instead of a Windows-7-chan, there will be a Windows-7-sensee.
Insofar as it’s possible (and I’d be the last guy in the world to answer that), I’d still like to see a Windows 7 Game Edition: A bare-bones, no bloatware version tuned to one thing and one thing only: To wring as much gaming performance from the hardware as possible. Something that’ll make games run more smoothly on a 2 year old PC than they would on a state-of-the-art rig with Vista. I’d pay quite a bit for that.
Respectfully
krise madsen
Apple’s hardware model is a good one: two primary lines (budget and pro) and two minor differences within them.
Following that, MS should probably go with Netbook, Home, Small Business and Enterprise. Everyone would know which version targeted whom. As is, their versioning as is isn’t very coherent.
There’s really nothing they could do to make the OS any more game- performance friendly short of fixing the hardware spec and disallowing you from installing any software on the system that isn’t a game (no toolbars, no antivirus, no software that runs a background updater, whatever)… so yeah you’re really asking for Windows Console Edition – they call it the Xbox 360.
I’ll take that*. I could run non-gaming stuff on a “regular” PC.
*) As soon as it’ll run the good PC games.
Respectfully
krise madsen