Nipping silliness in the bud: Windows 7 SKUs and pricing

Of course, the resident trolls will pick up on this and state that there are 23 versions of W7...even though MS hasnb't announced a thing, as Paul points out. In other news...GO CARDINALS!!! Take that DRWAM!!! --tayme

On a great many occasions I agree with Paul but sometimes you've just gotta pull back the reigns and say "WOAH!" Why do we need an Ultimate edition of Windows 7? The ONLY reason I can think especially since M$ confirmed they're dropping Ultimate Extras, is that you would get a multi-user (home) licence for the money. This is something I and many other tech beta testers are pushing for. Will it happen..? I doubt it personally which brings me back to my original question. Why do we need an Ultimate edition of Windows 7?

There ARE a few times when users want to have DVD video burning and playback included, as well as Media Center, but still need to connect to a domain. That's who Ultimate is suited to.

I definately agree they need to reduce the # of versions. However I think the versions should be Home, Enterprise, and Ulimate. With the assumption that everything that was in Pro and Enterprise get merged into one.

"There is currently no distinction between home and business. Windows 7 is a mishmash of both done in a frankly ludicrous way." Except that MS has not announced what editions will be available, so we can't say one way or the other.

"I just hope that if 32-bit Windows 7 can't be killed off entirely, it's at least shuffled off to netbooks" There are Atom processors that support 64-bit though. The Z series all have VT, demand-based switching, and Hyperthreading support, but no 64-bit support. They're designed for MID's, but many SFF netbook makers are using them too. They have the better GMA 500 in the UC15W chipset. It supports DX10.1, and is based on a PowerVR core. The N series are the netbook models. They give up demand-based switching and VT. Both the N and Z series support Speedstep. Then there's the nettop models. There are two: the 220 and 330. Neither have Speedstep, nor VT, nor demand-based switching. Both DO have Hyperthreading, but the 330 is also dual-core (making Windows see 4 "virtual CPU's"). The N series and nettop models are only paired with the 945 chipset, which doesn't have as good a graphics core as the Z series, since it's a GMA 950. It's a mostly software-based DX9 core that will run Aero, but just barely. It's Intel's own design. The GMA 500 is positioned as a graphics core designed to run "advanced 3D UI's built on DX10 technologies". That makes it a good option for Windows 7. It also supports shader model 4, as well as more recent OpenGL versions. Unfortunately, Intel hasn't written Windows 7 Aero compatible drivers for it yet. It will easily handle Windows Vista's version of Aero though, but the Vista drivers will not enable Aero in 7, which is a shame. I would hope (and expect) that Intel gets its act together before 7 ships. The Z series looks like it's just a better option for netbooks, and 7 will look like the OS of choice, since Linux has shown to be an option that few people stick with (look at the EeePC as an example of that). BTW: The whole NVIDIA thing about Ion is based around the N series. They're a little faster than the Z's, but Intel won't sell them without bundling them with a 945 chipset. I'd like to see the 9400GS that NVIDIA proposes, working with an Atom, but I'd much rather see it with a 330 dual-core. In a couple years time, Intel will probably go back to the Atom low-power technology and leverage it in their mainstream chips. People just don't seem to be ready for the Nehalem architecture.

Wae, which atom processors have 64-bit support? It is all the ones that have VT, right?

> I believe that there should only be three Windows 7 SKUs: Home, Professional, and Ultimate. Totally true. Or at least this is all that home users need to see. I can understand a Starter SKU and and Enterprise SKU that no consumer would ever have to deal with. Starter would just be Home with the three windows limit, while Enterprise should ideally just be Professional with different licensing, if at all. But ideally, they would not exist, especially Enterprise (Professional could replace it). On costs, lowering the cost for Netbooks for OEMs, lowering retail costs, and a home pack (much like Apple has done, but not like the one that Microsoft offered for a period of time) would be ideal. Netbooks for OEMs could be a moving target of either low end hardware, or much better, target cost, as a progressive charge that caps out. Best choice? A mix of both that uses the OEM price as a base, and reduces cost based on features considered high end, like a webcam, or a touchscreen. I dunno, my idea here is undeveloped; I'll do a better write-up on my blog later.

"Most home users don't need business features like domain support. What they DO need is a family licence pack." How many home users actually upgrade their OS?

Even my $400 Vista [Acer] laptop supports 64 bit. Go Steelers!

In order to make the most out of Vista 2.0, wouldn't it be best to just have one SKU? I mean, surely during installation you could be asked what features you want or need. Having lots of SKUs means more shelf space, but that doesn't mean you sell more. It just confuses the market. Calling one version 'Ultimate' implies that all the other versions are lacklustre and missing something. It looks greedy too, mainly because it is.

"I can understand a Starter SKU and and Enterprise SKU that no consumer would ever have to deal with." They already do that though. I stand by my idea: They only need to get rid of Home Basic. That leaves 3 to decide on for probably 90% of computer shoppers unless they have an enterprise agreement already. That's hardly a difficult decision. If you want to look at complicated software decisions, have you looked at Symantec's Norton antimalware offerings lately? They have the following: Norton Antivirus 2009 Norton Antivirus Gaming Edition Norton Antibot Norton Internet Security 2009 Norton 360 2.0 Norton 360 2.0 Premium Edition Norton SystemWorks Standard Edition 12.0 Norton SystemWorks Premier Edition 12.0 (*Both of these versions of Systemworks include antivirus functionality) McAfee is just about as bad. They have the following: McAfee Virusscan Plus 2009 McAfee Internet Security 2009 McAfee Total Protection 2009 McAfee Anti-Theft 2009 Here's the bad thing about them: They have 3 ways to buy the software. 1 by retail, and 2 online methods. The retail package gets you the current year with the associated features. You get malware definition updates within that year. When you renew, you keep the current year, but only get new definition updates. You don't get the new year (and features) at all. The online versions are divided into 2 methods: download, or online installation. The download is the same as the retail, in that you don't get any new features, and are not entitled to new upgrades as they roll out. The online installation does give you the right to get new upgrades as part of your subscription. Whenever you install, you get the latest engine, definitions, and features immediately. It installs via an ActiveX control on IE (it might be supported by "plugin" format on other browsers - I have no idea). The online installation is the only method that is analogous to how Windows Live OneCare works. It's a subscription too, and new features are downloaded automatically within your subscription (although in the case of OneCare, since it will be discontinued later this year, development has likely stopped on feature additions, but whatever....)

But you've already paid for Vista. This isn't a new OS, it's an updated one. I bet you get charged Vista prices again however.

"But you've already paid for Vista. This isn't a new OS, it's an updated one. I bet you get charged Vista prices again however." I guess you're right. Everyone who paid for Windows 1 should also get Windows 7 free. After all, these are just updates. In fact, this should apply to other businesses too. Anyone who paid for the 2008 Audi A4 should've got the 2009 model free, or at least get to exchange their car for a 2009 model. It's not like 2009 models are too different from 2008 models.

@shark47: What I never get is why people don't ignore the trolls in here. I wish Thurrott would consider a comment mod system that hides crap comments, and marks as spam people who make multiple accounts, advertise other sites excessively, or are extremely off-topic (this one would be the hardest, as off topic chatter in the posts are not always bad). But meh, we could just ignore them.

"If Microsoft takes these important steps, they’ll prove that the simplicity initiatives in Windows 7 aren’t just window dressing, and that the company is serious about making Windows simpler for users across the board. Go for it, guys. We’re waiting." As if these simple steps will cure an OS plagued with security problems. And yes, it's just Windows window dressing with this point release of Windows 6.1.

I am continually amused at how people seem to have their own definitions of what makes a "new OS". I'd be curious to see someone compile a list of 'new features' in Windows 7 using Apple's definition.

"I'd be curious to see someone compile a list of 'new features' in Windows 7 using Apple's definition." Where Apple would have 300 new features, Windows 7 would have 9600. (Free beer for anybody that understands that)

@waethorn: "Where Apple would have 300 new features, Windows 7 would have 9600." And 9599 of those are security patches.

DRWAM: I have doubts that hardware requirements are much of an issue for the different versions. I don't believe there is going to be much difference in resource usage between homepremium/business/enterprise/ultimate, considering that resource usage comes with running applications and services; hard disk space would be more of a deciding factor whenever you weren't actually using the extra features. home basic may run better on low-end hardware thanks to its crippled DWM, however, but only marginally, i presume. you could get roughly the same effect in other versions by disabling aero. different versions aren't about hardware subsets; they're about feature subsets.

"And 9599 of those are security patches." Yeah, sure. Apple never has security patches. Oh wait ... you don't install them, right? Who needs security patches when you have OS X? "touché robertsjoe " Yes, doc, we're all Microsoft fanboys for not encouraging him!

planetarian, I see your point. Win 7 netbooks should get very popular, since they will be very portable and have much more functionality than that a Linux. My buddy just told me yesterday, that his daughter did not want to risk damaging a MacBook Pro a college, so she bought a Linux netbook at Target, that she carries around all day. She finds it very useful. But just think if it had Win 7 installed. She have even more usefulness. Hopefully she will be able to upgrade it when available.

I don't see the purpose of Home Premium. Why not have just Business and Ultimate? Why restrict home users? Businesses I can understand not wanting all the media center stuff, but everyday users may like things like Previous Versions, Bitlocker etc. but 90% of the people who only get Windows when they buy a new PC will never get to use those features because they are more than likely going to get Home Premium, and if you're going to make me have to pay over $200 to upgrade my OS when I just bought the new computer, then forget it!

Well, Vista had problems and in the end, Microsoft has to accept responsibility for them. They might face ridicule from some quarters, but on the whole, I think giving 7 cheap to Vista users would give earn them the kind of goodwill that the free Zune firmware updates did.

i dont know what "ultimate" price the consumers have to pay if they opt in for windows 7 ultimate..wasnt xp doing fine with only two versions may be we can have only two of 'em