Multiple Windows 7 versions coming? Say it ain't so!
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted January 25th 2009 12:49PM
posted January 25th 2009 12:49PM
[Thanks, Pete]
posted January 25th 2009 12:49PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
ugh not this again!
why do we even need starter and home basic?
Can't we keep it at 2 or 3 versions top?
I am going to be an anticonformist and just throw it out there that i like my options. I have in the past built small htpcs or servers that i didnt want anything special on. while on the other hand i like to have the best possible software on my desktop. I am happy about this actually.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Microsoft may be selling one disk that contains every version? That way, depending on the computer you're installing it on, you can choose what features to install. And the simplest way to do this would be to classify the limited features as "Starter" "Basic", all the way up to Ultimate.
If I were the designers at Microsoft, that would be how I would do it.
We were right here not too long ago when Vista was released - and they go and do it all again?
i agree 2 - 3 choices and make it clear to everyone exactly what they are getting
I have vista ultimate and it runs great (even before SP1), however, from what I understand Vista Home performs much worse than ultimate. Everyone seems to like the win 7 ultimate beta right now. If there is the same disparity between win 7 home and win 7 ultimate, people who are using the beta now, and decide to buy win 7 when it comes out, will be sorely disappointed in the performance they get. I hope microsoft doesn't this mistake again...
Actually, all Vista x86 versions were on the same disk. All that mattered was what code for which version you typed in
They are not real.
Me, I'm waiting for Windows 7 Ultimate Home Family Platinum Whitening Edition With Retsin.
Starter is typically for developing countries, and very severely gimped. So the only versions that would be sold to consumers in the US would be Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate. I think that Home Basic will be a netbook-type OS, without Aero and stuff, just so you can run Windows programs. Home Premium will have all consumer-level features, and Ultimate will be for hardcore gamers/enthusiasts.
Is this really that confusing to people? If yes, then you must get totally destroyed walking through the cereal section.
There are five choices. The Starter sux - guaranteed. The Ultimate will be overpriced with pointless additional features. That leaves three choices. As long as the differences are clearly enumerated, then no problem.
... and don't even think of venturing into the cookie/cracker section. You'll be sucking your thumb in the fetal position.
They have always had two OS lines, a business one, and a home one.
Pre XP it used to be NT and 95/98 ect.
Win ME was windows "home"
and windows 2000 was windows "business"
Just when they decided to move to one kernel for home and business, the lines got a bit more blurred.
You also have to remember that a administrator wont want to deply a OS with enhanced media ect functions in a business environment.
I used XP pro and Vista business in a home environment, mostly as the enhanced networking settings where useful, and I got them free off msac.
I hope they go for a 2, or at worst 3 sku scheme.
Two versions would have been great. But since that seems unlikely, lets have lots and lots of versions. Lets go crazy!
» Windows Starter
» Windows Really Basic
» Windows Basic Edition
» Windows Home Edition for Small Home Owners
» Windows Home Edition CE (Condominium Edition - Specially optimized for condominium environment).
» Windows Home Edition Ultimate
» Windows Small Business Edition
» Windows Business - Enterprise Edition
» Windows Business - Corporate Edition
And last but not least
» Windows Mystery Edition (You never know which Windows you got until you open the box).
Anyone remembering the old Windows setups? Where you could actually decide what to add to your basic install by selecting different programs and services? If I remember correctly you could make those decisions up until Windows ME ... so why not ship a feature packed disc to the customer these days and let him choose, whether he wants Media Center functionality or not, this or that Windows program installed and what services should be present? With a optional default install of course for the "computer technology challenged user" ... one disc, one price
@Tino
lol
.
But I'll tell you something; I would only smoke it in the late evening. Oh, occasionally the early evening, but usually the late evening—or the mid-evening. Just the early evening, mid-evening and late evening. Occasionally, early afternoon, early mid-afternoon, or perhaps the late-mid-afternoon. Oh, sometimes the early-mid-late-early morning.... But never at dusk!
—Steve Martin
.
If Starter and Basic were in the same box, then go for it.
» Windows St.. (without arter)
» Windows Starter
» Windows Home Basic Single
» Windows Home Basic Multi
» Windows Home Basic Premium
» Windows Home Basic Business
» Windows Home Premium Basic
» Windows Home Premium Basic Single
» Windows Home Premium Basic Ultimate
» Windows Business 12k (companies revenue under $12k)
» Windows Business 50bn (for companies with revenue over $50 billion)
» Windows Enterprise Business
» Windows Enterprise Professional
» Windows Enterprise Wife
» Windows Ultimate Basic
» Windows Ultimate Premium
» Windows Ultimate Ultimate Basic
» Windows Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate
Keep them comming!
"And you won't get Direct X, version 11 for XP, obviously. And Microsoft will come up with some BS excuse as to why the "architecture" on XP won't support it"
The changes required to XP to accomidate even the features of DX10 would necessitate new driver models and entire, HUGE chunks of the display system and kernel to be seriously revamped. XP has no GPU scheduling capabilities at all, and can't support the new memory virtualization schemes simply because of the way it works. DX11 is even more advanced.
If you don't understand it, don't call it BS.
Horshit controversy.
1) The outrage over the number of versions of Vista mostly played out on the internet as most people who use it couldn't care less.
2) People who are complaining....
a) Mac fanboys trying to get some negative press going for Win7
b) Never planned on using it anyways.
MioTheGreat
Memory virtualization was removed from Direct X10's requirements due to Nvidia being unable to get it working when the Geforce 8 series launched.
"Starter is typically for developing countries, and very severely gimped. So the only versions that would be sold to consumers in the US would be Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate. I think that Home Basic will be a netbook-type OS, without Aero and stuff, just so you can run Windows programs. Home Premium will have all consumer-level features, and Ultimate will be for hardcore gamers/enthusiasts."
You should write for this blog, but you have too much sense.
Great post!
Uh, I've been seeing this screen since I first downloaded the beta. I've only installed it on Vmware but I see it every time...
I think they should get rid of Home Basic and replace it with Lite Edition (for netbooks) and Older Relative Edition (Easy-to-use with lots of problem-solving tools so my mom and grandma don't always have to call me asking what a http 404 error is)
You have the right idea with 3 but I'd add a 4th ultra light weight edition.
Typical MS.... maybe there's room to learn being more simplistic from that fruit company.
Regards,
a PC.
Maybe starter is for low end computers, like Netbooks, which have lowpower low speed chips.
Mark me up for the "No BSOD" version. The Vista DVD contained all the versions. It just depended on which pirated serial number you used to unlock it's full goodness (or badness) depending upon your point of view. Vista Ultimate ran nicely on decent hardware. I got tired of listening to the fans on my wimpy Intel Core 2 Duo. I didn't have any decent hardware and stuck with WinXP Pro.
I guess the Starter version of Windows 7 runs well on netbooks. The Ultimate version of Windows 7 probably runs well on some mofo 8-core Intel processor yet to be announced.
I think Windows 7 Ultimate means Ultimately you'll not get your money's worth from it and go back to Windows XP.
I think having multiple versions is a great idea. It's obviously designed to weed out the idiots who struggle to decide what's best for them.
At worst, 99% of you will have to choose between no more than 2 versions but in general you won't have any choice and will just be given Home Premium. Is that so hard? Did you all struggle with the numerous versions of XP that were basically the same as Vista/7?
This is a feeble complaint to make about Windows and one that would only he made by the most feeble mind.
You don't say Engadget I saw that coming a mile away. Of Course Microsoft is going to keep doing that. The one good thing I can say about apple is that they didn't hit the consumer with several different versions of something.
The EU commission thinks otherwise...
The 20 Windows 7 versions can be found here:
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/14/swidniw.png
@JayC who wrote "Can't we keep it at 2 or 3 versions top?"
Well seeing that Windows 7 is only a evolutionary (read minor) upgrade to Vista, having the same number of versions doesn't really surprise me. But in fact there are many more versions of Vista:
Starter
Home Basic
Home Premium
Business
Enterprise
Ultimate
Home Basic 64-bit
Home Premium 64-bit
Business 64-bit
Enterprise 64-bit
Ultimate 64-bit (included on the Ultimate CD in some cases)
Then there are so many localized versions of each.
Compared to Apple:
OS X 10.5 Leopard
One version runs 32/64 bit apps, is multi-language (18) and doesn't restrict access to features depending on the product key entered.
People complain about Vista's edition, but XP was even worse. I have to carry a million-in-1 XP repair disk to work on PCs because you need a separate XP disk for every type of license out there:
Home Retail
Home OEM
Pro Retail
Pro OEM
Pro Corp
MCE 2004 OEM
MCE 2005 Retail
MCE 2005 OEM
Tablet 2005 OEM
The fact that Vista (and now Windows 7) have all the editions in ONE disk makes everything so much easier.
Also, why complain when 90% of the computers out there will either have Home Premium or Business? Most people who buy their own licenses will get Ultimate because its cost is not that high anymore (at least for an OEM license).
How is this difficult...? Why does this have to be so complex?
Home (Not Home Basic, Not Home Premium, just Home)
Business (Because some of us need Terminal Services and IIS)
Ultimate (Because some of us like to use Terminal Services and IIS AT HOME)
Netbooks? Tablets? Thin clients? I figure if you buy ANY version of ANY OS you should be able to pick and choose which bloatware you want on your machine irrespective of what you pay, including tablet functionality. That should be the accepted standard at this stage.
I don't even understand their marketing. I can understand Starter as that as been in foreign markets for a while, but Home Basic serves no real purpose. I mean, if it didn't exist, people would just buy Home Premium. I don't think there is anyone who is going to go "ohh, ouch, that's just 30 bucks too much for me."
Am I missing something here? Does this model actually make perfect sense and I just don't see why?
what's so difficult about this everyone? I mean I know that people were confused with Vista but was it really that hard? Will it continue to be hard since 20 million copies of Vista are already sold?
Home Basic = no bells and whistles
Home Premium = spend a little more and it'll look nicer and have more features
Business = if you're into more networking features (or simply are a business)
Ultimate = just give it all to me and I'll figure out what I want to use
Honestly if you can't guess that from the names by yourself, then you're going to need help buying the rest of your computer anyway.
Business's will pick the Business one. And home users will have to choose between three words that they can probably guess SIMPLY by how much time they spend on a computer:
BASIC - PREMIUM - ULTIMATE
Stop looking for things to gripe about, I know you all are smart enough.
I mean seriously, I'd rather have these four names then ones named after big cats and don't get me started on Linux Distros...
@ Kodek
You forgot XP Embedded
Its so much simpler with 2-3 Versions: 1Home 1Professional and maybe 1Media Centre(kinda like XP)
"Its so much simpler with 2-3 Versions: 1Home 1Professional and maybe 1Media Centre(kinda like XP)"
No James, it wasn't any "simpler" with XP and that's exactly the point that you and everyone else is missing. XP had (at least) the following versions available:
XP Starter
XP Home
XP Professional
XP Media Center Edition
XP Tablet PC Edition
XP 64-bit
XP Home N
XP Professional N
I've left off XP Embedded for obvious reasons and there may be other versions that I've accidentally missed.
The point is, despite the plethora of different XP versions nobody had any problems choosing the right version (with the exception of Media Center users who weren't able to connect to a domain - Vista Ultimate cures this issue) so what is the problem now? I suspect nobody will answer this because they all know too well that there is NO PROBLEM.
I can't believe this thread has so many posts to it over the most trivial point. Engadget must be really pleased that Joshua Topolsky was able to assemble so many fools in one place and get them all to read ads about how to whiten teeth.
For Paul Chapel and the other Apple idiots, the reason OS X only needs one version is that it caters for a tiny number of people who believe that their personalities can be defined by status symbols. As a result, it doesn't need to cater to too many different groups because its user base is inherently shallow and don't require much in the way of software. As long as they've got the simple tools that they need to update their Facebook profile and the hardware to light up the big Apple logo on the lid they should be OK.
The day Windows is able to exist with one version is the day it will die.
Most complaints as replies ever on engadget.
"Memory virtualization was removed from Direct X10's requirements due to Nvidia being unable to get it working when the Geforce 8 series launched."
But it's still a capability of the system, one that could never be implemented with XP.
I agree with Mike10010100. I think that is what is happening. Or atleast I hope it is. But, really, I don't care. As long as Windows 7 is released this year, I will be happy.
Two version needed:
1) Standard.
2) Light.
Which version do I need if I want to get that Paper Clip fellow?
They should sell ONE version.
When installing, they let you pick your user type ("home"/"business"/etc) and then let you customize the packages to be installed (which the basic users could just skip past). Charging different amounts for a basic features is bullshit.
Starter? Really?
Why not just home/business/server or 7/7 server?
I'd do Home, Business (or Professional), and Ultimate.
As "Thethirdmoose" said before:
Starter is typically for developing countries, and very severely gimped.
Hopefully Microsoft has learned that "Ultimate" means more than a few measly sound schemes, cheesy games, and video desktops. Maybe they'll actually develop some useful add-ons for people who pay the premium price for Ultimate.
Yes I bought Vista ultimate when it was released. Definitely not worth the money. I bought home premium for my iMac and that seemed to worth the money.