After months of maintaining that it had not yet finalized its Windows Vista line up, Microsoft seems finally to have decided upon a half dozen core Vista versions. According to a posting on its Web site, Microsoft is readying six core Vista packages, or SKUs, plus two additional releases customized for the European Union that won’t bundle in Windows Media Player, as ordered by European antitrust regulators.
… making one version that has all the functionality built -in -> Media, Pro, Tablet – keep things simple
Go get a job at any large company and try telling them about your ideas. I’m sure you’ll get far.
that would be vista ultimate. has everything.
Then I can finaly buy a Tablet Media Center Laptop and be a happy-happy-camper
“… making one version that has all the functionality built -in -> Media, Pro, Tablet – keep things simple
”
Microsoft may be licencing the technologies used in the tablet edition, so the cost would be passed on to you, even if you don’t need the features. In theory separate editions means they can cut prices.
I’d like a Windows ‘Program Launcher’ edition, with no browser, no notepad, no networking, no MSN, just the absolute bare minimun I need to run the single Windows application I still use. I bet it would be astonishingly stable too.
That would make VISTA more appealing…
@Punktyras
IE has a good interface/simple. They just need to make it fast. Fast like the Opera browser.
lol
Withholding Windows Media Player in a modern Operating System no longer makes sense. What was considered a luxary many years ago such as air conditioning in cars is now considered the norm.
I guess the EU has to ask the question, where should Microsoft draw the line before stepping on more third party toes?
Well, quite frankly, I think building third party consumer tools should be considered shakey at best. This is very similar to the IE Browser debate, I don’t believe the EU is now demanding MS ship an OS without a browser because it would be impracticle to do so.
Based on the results of the purchases of WMP default install verse non-WMP installs it seems installing WMP is the clear winner.
The battle is surely won in the release of royality free access to the Windows API’s and documentation of protocols, which it comforting to see the EU targeting this area moving forward.
I think the issue is that it also happens to plugs into their own streaming media format, so out of the box their server software is given an immediate advantage. People listening to their competitors media streaming formats will need to download a player. If WMP was just a download it wouldn’t be an issue, or if their streaming media format was an open one. They’re just following the usual lock-in strategy.
While I’m not a fan of Microsoft I believe all distributions, Windows, Linux and OSX come with a default set-up that includes a browser and media players. The issue with Windows is up till now Microsoft has gone happily along with making it difficult to uninstall one of their software applications with out breaking something. The other issue is with applications such as MSN Messenger will only work with IE, not third party browsers such as Firefox. Microsoft should be able to make all Windows Vista versions with the ability for a consumer to select during installation of the OS whether they want an application made by Microsoft installed or a third party. Otherwise the option to uninstall Microsoft applications should still be made available such as removing MSN Messenger with out depending on IE for example. This would be similar to how SUSE Linux from Novell works and other Linux developers. If they can offer this then why shouldn’t Microsoft be expected to offer consumers the same flexibility?
Edited 2006-02-19 18:11
Msft is coming out with six core versions? My guess is that the standard version, the version that ships to most home PCs, will prove inadequate within a few months.
Fortunately, msft will provide an upgrade version for $149.
“inadequate” to what?
It should be basically the same as the actual XP’s Home Version in terms of functionality for the home user. The basic difference from now is the Media Center and Tablet Editions moving to the other editions plus some new features distributed too between them too.
Microsoft needs to remember the all-important concept of Keep It Simple Stupid.
7 versions?
1. Server
2. workstation
3. EU edition
I mean, come on. The only difference between a tablet pc and a laptop is the touch screen. For the home user, just make one version. “here you go, this is windows. Install it. Have a nice day”.
Make media center a 50 dollar add on.(or whatever the difference in price is)
K.I.S.S. And that’s it.
Having multiple versions is not good:
I once wrote an ASP website, and the client wanted to demonstrate the new ordering system at a trade show, but there was no internet connection there. I told them that we could install the website onto the laptop so that it could be demoed from the client’s laptop.
Of course, they had Windows XP Home on the laptop for no discernable reason. IIS is not provided with XP Home. He had to spend £250 for XP PRO in order to run the website locally.
Imagine you’re learning some development technology, and you originally purchased the base version of Vista to save money. Now in order to use this new technology you’re learning – you need a higher version of Vista. But like there is no upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro, you must pay the full purchase price for the next version up of Vista just to get one extra app/service.
It’s bad enough if you get hit with the upgrade trap on XP, there’s only one higher version. Imagine getting hit four times over the span of three or four years as you make use of more development technologies.
I’m so fed up with the Microsoft treadmil, I’ve switched to OSX, where I have one version, and PHP, which comes as standard and free.
Learn to install apache.
You had a poor planning issue, not a microsoft rips you off problem.
– Microsoft Fanboy
Every single day hundreds of students are being churned out from college with absolutely no idea that anything other than Microsoft software exists. It’s easier to teach, and changes just as slow as the curriculum.
Microsoft have a constant stream of people they can rip off. These people are not aware Appache exists; that’s not bad planning on their part, but bad education. You’re being ignorant of the reality of the situation.
He did say that it was an ASP website, so how would learning to install apache help him?
Last time I checked, Pro doesn’t come with IIS either.
Guess what? XP is a consumer/desktop OS, NOT a server OS.
Yes it does. IIS is needed for instance to install the Exchange system manager on an XP workstation. (which I use daily for my work)
It’s also worth mentioning that the “Pro” versions of Vista won’t have the silly 1 website limit that IIS in XP pro does: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/02/16/438353.aspx
Er, I have Pro here; the same day 1 CD I’ve been using since 2001. It has RDC, IIS and Gpedit, which XPHome does not. XP PRO is a _business_ OS; not a server OS. Developers run webservers _locally_ to build and test applications.
Whoops, you are right. I never really ventured into the add/remove windows components thing
Still, I see no reason why you’d complain that home doesn’t have IIS. You explained yourself why it wouldn’t.
“But like there is no upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro, you must pay the full purchase price for the next version up of Vista just to get one extra app/service. “
Actually you CAN use the upgrade version to upgrade from Home to Pro. You do not have to spend the full amount. Now with that said I myself am holding out until they publish a pricing structure before making any assumptions. According to what I have read so far there will only be ONE media set, which actually contains all versions, and the only difference in what gets installed is the key used. I am very curious to see how that pans out, as that in itself would cut costs, and upgrading should be as simple as buying a new license key. Only the pricing structure will tell if they are going to continue to price gouge, or if they will settle on a reasonable price structure for a change.
Maybe you should look up what gouge means.
“Maybe you should look up what gouge means.”
The full term in my email was “price gouge”. Price gouging means to charge what is considered an unfair price in the market. The usual Microsft pricing may be deemed as unfair for the following facts:
1.) Windows XP Pro Retail costs $299 USD.
2.) Windows XP Home sells for $199 retail USD
3.) Windows XP Pro in the Microsft Company Store, which sells at cost, sells for $40 USD.
3.) Mac OS X Sells for $129 USD retail
4.) Linux versions such as Suse sell for $70 USD retail
Considering the prices of Mac OS X and Suse Linux, and the $159 USD difference between cost and retail for Windows XP Pro, I consider that price gouging.
So yes, I know what price gouging is, and the above facts depict why I consider Microsoft to be price gouging. It is all relative, as what one person deems unfair another may deem perfectly acceptable, and I respect that. My point of the first email was to hope they brought pricing down to match the way I understand currently Microsoft plans to distribute Vista.
Edit: Corrected typo and changed “prie” to “price”
Edited 2006-02-20 02:29
Yo got it wrong.
XP sells for 199 retail with all the service packs for the next few years included.
OSX sells for 129 retail with no service packs included.
If you had bought OSX when it first came out, and upgraded regularly with every bought release, how much would it have cost you?
If you had bought XP when it first came out, and upgraded regularly, how much would it have cost you?
It is a myth that OSX is a loss leader. OSX is enormously profitable, as well as quite expensive, but the price is disguised and paid over time. The real reason that OSX is not viable as a standalone OS is not that it would hurt hardware sales. It is that to compete, the price would have to be lowered. Not the initial purchase price, however.
By the way, the same applies to Suse Linux. It is not a one-off.
“XP sells for 199 retail with all the service packs for the next few years included.”
That is Windows XP Home Edition. I quoted Windows XP Pro which is $299 Retail. Yes, you can download service packs.
“OSX sells for 129 retail with no service packs included.”
No service packs? They update and actually just updated for free download to 10.4.4…which is a service pack.
“If you had bought XP when it first came out, and upgraded regularly, how much would it have cost you?”
It cost me $299 USD as that is what the retail boxed product cost at CompUSA. Now with Mac OS X in the same time frame I have spent roughly $258 over the same time period. For SUSE Linux it has cost me about $210 for the same time period. The time period referred to is 5 years.
Don’t think this is quite right, is it? Not what you personally bought, just lets compare what happened in the market.
Start off, you bought a machine with XP installed and with OSX 10.0 installed. Now lets start from there.
Lets just write it all down.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
How much did the upgrades cost?
Then lets write down the others
XP SP1
XP SP2
How much did they cost?
Just write down the real story. Not that this is a good or a bad thing. It says nothing about value or preference. But its what is actually going on.
“Start off, you bought a machine with XP installed and with OSX 10.0 installed. Now lets start from there.”
Okay, I’ll bite. I did buy a Mac with OS X installed. I did not buy a machine with Windows installed as I build my own machines.
Now, the different versions of OS X you listed are valid, but the discussion was on security updates and patches, NOT new OS with added functionality. Windows XP SP1 and SP2 were just security patches with no added functionality being given to the OS, so they should have been free, as are security updates and patches for Mac OS X. You are comparing full OS versions of OS X to security patches for Windows.
I can see your point though about value and preferences, as that is what the average user may see, as some people I have talked to believe that XP SP2 is actually a new Windows version, when it reality it is what it says it is, a security update and nothing more.
I bet even the lowend useful versions will still be over the $100 Mark. I really don’t feel like buying another MIcrosoft OS when XP works just fine. Microsoft has some real competetion nowadays and can’t play the same game it usually does with OS upgrades.
@Smartpatrol
What’s also sad is your demonstration of how cheap you really are.
I payed ~140$ CAD for the OEM version somewhere in 2002. It’s quite cheap. MS doesn’t charge much for their OSes.
i think MS should buy Sky OS.
-2501
Err why do you think they should buy Sky OS?
ya and have microsoft ruin skyos. ya thats what we all want (sarcasm)
Since Microsoft has officially announced the versions does this mean the OS is feature complete? If so, when will they have a web page with a comparison chart, with prices, so we can see what version will “meet our needs”?
I read somewhere that all the versions will be on one disk, but users will have to purchase the appropriate license to gain access to the version they want. Was this just a rumor or has Microsoft officially stated this is how Vista will be delivered?
Come on 7 versions, & what is Window Starter 2007?
There should only be.
1. Home Version
2. Business Version
3. Server Version
4. EU Versions without Media Player
Edited 2006-02-19 18:21
Come on 7 versions, & what is Window Starter 2007?
Windows Starter edition is reduced feature, locale tailored, low cost version of Windows for developing markets. It won’t be sold in major markets like the US, EU, etc.
XP Starter Edition is the current release for these developing markets:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/08-10WinXPStarter…
There are really only 5 SKUs when not counting Starter and the EU-only “N” versions. Of those, Enterprise will likely only be available to volume customers, and Home Basic may be an OEM-only product, leaving 3 normal retail SKUs (4 if Home Basic is made available as a low-cost entry product for retail as well as OEM).
Edited 2006-02-19 19:09
It has begun….
the next headline; “Microsoft gets a brain, will you?”
As much as I hate multiple versions, I don’t think they have much choice. Many of us look at OSX and see how it’s just 2 versions, regular and server and think MS could do the same. But really they can’t. They could easily do it on a technical level and it would be great. But there is cost issues.
Apple sells there OS at a loss, or for very little profit. They make it up on the hardware. If Apple were to stop selling hardware and sell just OSX, it would cost 300-400 bucks. Actually probably way more at the moment unless they got their market share way up.
So back to MS. If they did the 1 OS, then Everyone would be paying for everything, thus paying probably at least 400 bucks for it. But thats just silly for most people. So buy splitting it into levels and giving a price structure, they can make cheaper versions thus make it more accessible to to people. XP home is pretty cheap, can be had for around the same price as OSX. If it were higher, people would be stealing it even more. Also OEM PC makers would have to raise prices since they would not be able to base their prices on massively discounted versions of XP Home. So price of a PC might go up 50-100 bucks.
It all makes sense, and yes its annoying, but I think most would prefer levels and being able to buy it, then having just a expensive version.
What doesn’t make sense is having 32bit and 64bit versions of the same thing. The same version should be able to run on either processor. Also some of these versions are more like add ons to the base, why not just let people buy the extension as if it were an app and add it to their base.
This is just BS, sorry to say so.
The OS *is not* going to cost $400! The tablet and Media center apps are *additions* to windows, and not new operating systems, each with its own cost. The price of an OEM PC will not go up.
Microsoft doesn’t have multiple versions because the higher ones cost more to make than the lower ones. Basically, like everyone else, they do it to capture the consumer surplus: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html
While it’s a completely understandable practice from a business point of view, 6 segments is totally ridiculous. I think they could do well with 2 or 3. Say, Home, Pro and Server. Anything more that that is just adding confusion to the marketpace. Having Home come in Basic, Premium and Ultimate is just insane and unnecessary.
Bear in mind that MS also has 80% gross margins, so it’s not like they’d be *forced* to raise prices. Rememeber that the marginal cost of software is close to zero.
“Every single day hundreds of students are being churned out from college with absolutely no idea that anything other than Microsoft software exists. It’s easier to teach, and changes just as slow as the curriculum.
Microsoft have a constant stream of people they can rip off. These people are not aware Apache exists; that’s not bad planning on their part, but bad education. You’re being ignorant of the reality of the situation.”
All too true. For instance, my old college got rid of everything non-MS related in favor of Microsoft. They said it was a cost cutting measure. They also got rid of all Oracle classes, UNIX, assembly language, and anything not related to Microsoft.
I said if you want me to contribute to an alumni fund, you have to reinstate non-MS products. These kids are being given a significant disadvantage if they learn only Microsoft based products.
Come on…It’s not a Microsoft world in the real business world.
Opensauce fanatics have come out to play.
Edited 2006-02-19 23:49
Personally I think MS is making a terrible mistake fragmenting Windows even further, as apposed to the current arrangement; a simple business and consumer license model. Be that as it may, my biggest concern is with the possible price structure that may follow this new arrangement. Being a “Prosumer” and avid PC gamer, the “Ultimate” edition will probably be best suited to me. Unfortunately, that edition will no doubt cost a king’s ransom…I’m guessing upwards of $299 just for the upgrade. I don’t know that for a fact, but I’d bet money on that exact price-point. If that’s the case, what does that say about Microsoft’s competitive pricing, or lack thereof? Compared to OSX, which contains all the digital bits you could ask for, @ $129, and compare that with Microsoft’s fragmented, and top-down price structure, you start to see there is no value in Vista. I can’t compare Vista with Linux because that OS is free…and isn’t worth paying for anyway.
“I can’t compare Vista with Linux because that OS is free…and isn’t worth paying for anyway.”
To each thier own. Linux is as much worth paying for as Windows is, it just all depneds the usage. The best tool for the job is what I believe in and use. For some tasks Windows is better, such as a gaming platform, and for some other tasks. Linux has it’s niche as well and makes a great desktop system as well. Whatever seems to be the best tool for whatever my project is becomes what I use.