Mailbag: Six Is a Crowd for Windows 7, More

Six versions of Windows...again? Say it ain't so! Alas, Microsoft seems doomed to repeat past follies. Did it really sell enough of the mid-level versions of previous Windows incarnations to be worth the effort? Isn't the development and support of millions lines of code difficult enough in a target environment that already has an unfathomably large number of permutations of hardware and applications software? Why increase the magnitude of the task?

One version of Windows 7 is ideal. Two versions are plausible. Three versions is a step down the path to confusion. Six versions is folly.
-Richard

I was really hoping that it was just going to stay at two versions. I started to get excited then kept reading your article to find that there would be six. I about cried. I'm so tired of trying to decipher which three to eight features are in some versions and not in other versions. Bleh!
-Casey

Six versions of Windows 7? Sounds like Microsoft is making the same mistake twice. Having so many versions confuses most end users. Microsoft should have two versions at most of Windows, a Home and Business/Professional version. It could go the Apple route and just have one version with one price, but that may be a bit too simple for Microsoft to comprehend.
-Robert

Six is four too many. Please tell Microsoft to get back to the Windows XP model and have TWO -- one for home and one for enterprise. Honestly, it makes us all look a bit silly when Mac has one version for everyone (yes, I understand Apple really doesn't have one for enterprise) but we have to help people decide which of the six to choose from.
-Roger

I'm just asking Microsoft to use common sense: three versions of Windows 7 (i.e., Home, Business and Enterprise).
-Stephen

Microsoft has confused everyone with numerous versions of Vista, yet continues the madness with Windows 7. Microsoft claims that the market needs all these versions, but I maintain that a simplified lineup would be more cost-effective. At the most, three versions are needed: Basic, Home Premium, Professional. Purchasing and support would be greatly streamlined.
-Scott

It is a support nightmare for Microsoft and the IT community -- and a a public relations mistake -- to have more than one version.
-Steven

What was wrong with a Home version, a Professional version and -- for media freaks -- a Media version? Trying to give tech support and keep three XP versions, six Vista versions and now six Windows 7 versions clear when talking to a client that can't always successfully identify if he has Windows 98, Vista or XP...save me.
-D.B.

Let's start with one version that works like it was supposed to. Give me the basic Business one. I'd prefer not to deal with the Home version(s) at all. Our customers don't know the difference.
-Dan

One thing I have always disliked is the plethora of versions offered by MS. I can understand Starter, but otherwise a simple Home edition and Enterprise edition would have been fine.

Beleive it or not, there are many companies out there that use varied styles of licensing and MS is driving apart the ability to manage Windows easily by making IT administrators support multiple flavors of Vista and now 7. The features in Enterprise would be welcome in Business (or Pro for 7) and I think MS should really reconsider splitting the market.
-Jordan

Microsoft should learn from past experiences. With Windows XP, it finally got it right. At the most, there should be three versions. One for consumers, one for businesses and then an ultimate version with all the options for gamers/PC enthusiasts/Windows geeks.
-David

Six versions is way too many. Home, Small Business, Enterprise. Beyond that, even Windows 7 will find it hard to distinguish between the versions. Make it simple for businesses to choose (and use) Windows 7. Or is it the money for license upgrading that Microsoft is after?
-Dee

For goodness sake! Customers would be willing to pay for one excellent version of the Windows 7 OS based on their level of proficiency. You may be wise to consider one version of Basic, Home Premium and Professional.
-Joe

I think three versions are more than enough. When we had Window 98 and NT, two seemed to take care of the masses. Now we have gamers, so let's go with three: Home, Business and Gamers. Maybe it should be non-Internet, Internet and Ultra High-Performance with the emphasis on security. This nickel and dime stuff is silly. If people are going to complain about price, they will stay with their old computers or go to an alternative OS.

I suspect Microsoft wrote one OS and turned off features for less expensive versions so even though you bought the less expensive OS, it still takes up the same amount of space on your hard drive. If there is really only one OS, then you've got to wonder how Microsoft arrives at these price points. Small pieces of paper drawn out of a hat?
-Jim

Oh, for the days when we had one OS! (Remember when there was one Amiga OS for everyone?) The general public -- and few Microsoft partners, I might add -- does not understand the need for all these versions of Windows, and all this version mess seems to complicate the licensing to the point where you have to engage a "licensing specialist" just to quote the product to your clients! It's time for Microsoft to streamline the product line.
-John

How about only one version and using a license key to unlock the features? This would make upgrading to a higher version a snap. It would also keep service packs simple.
-Shane

If Microsoft puts the Enterprise edition at a reasonable price, then I don't care how many different versions it has ahead of it, because I won't be buying those versions anyway. The difficult part is in defining "reasonable" based on the quality of the product. But I do think that too many versions just muddy the water.
-Mike

Posted by Doug Barney on February 06, 20090 comments

Windows 7 Versions Verified

Posted by Doug Barney on February 04, 20091 comments

Vista: The 10 Percent Solution

Posted by Doug Barney on February 04, 20090 comments

A $10 Laptop with a Little Masala and Naan on the Side

The Indian government thinks none of these machines are cheap enough. It wants a $10 laptop More

Posted by Doug Barney on February 04, 20090 comments

Mailbag: Too Harsh on Vista?, More

No, you are not being too harsh on Vista. I ran it from the beta versions and have had many many problems -- drivers, speed, BSODs, etc. Maybe SP2 will fix Vista but I am not too optimistic.

I have, on the other hand, downloaded and installed Windows 7. This is what Vista SHOULD have been -- flawless install, and boot-up speeds are great. It seems Microsoft has a winner this time around.
-David

Heck no, you are not being too harsh on Vista. Vista is still flopping like a fish just pulled out of the lake and gasping for air as it asphyxiates on the shore. If SP2 can streamline the system, quits bugging its users by asking permission for everything it does, and doesn't break anything, then I think it will succeed. I never applied SP1 for fear of rending my system like a suffocated fish.
-Casey

No, I don't think you're being too harsh on Vista, generally speaking. It was oversold. I know because I was part of it. There is no way it was ever meant to be run on the hardware specs given. Internally at MSFT, we fought through many driver issues on demo machines. However, having used it in production since beta 1, I can say it has definitely gotten an undeserved bad rap. There were certainly many problems, but most were related to third parties not being prepared with drivers and software to support the new OS. True, a big part of that blame does rest on Microsoft's shoulders. Keep in mind, two key Microsoft executives "left" right after shipping: Brian Valentine to Amazon and Jim Allchin to retirement. That says something about what they and Microsoft truly felt about the effort. It wasn't ready still, even though it certainly should have been after so many years.

Windows 7 is different in that this is a new Windows team; Sinofsky is incredible and his team really believes in him, along with Jon Devaan. So we shouldn't be surprised that Windows 7 beta 1 is better than Vista beta 2 or maybe even RC1. However, it will get better still. Vista today, with SP2 beta, is as good as you can currently get in an OS. In terms of compatibility and usability, it's better than Mac and Ubuntu. So if you're still not happy with Vista, then maybe you're being a little too hard. However, don't be too kind to Windows 7 in this early stage, other than to be really excited about its final RTM future -- which will be great.
-Brian

Vista is a perfectly stable operating system...now. When it was first released, it was buggy and it did crash on me a few times. I don't agree that it was released too early, though. The alpha and betas were out for almost two years before the actual release, which is more than enough time for vendors to rewrite drivers. What was MS expected to do? Wait another two years for all hardware vendors to catch up?

My biggest issue is that after looking at Windows 7, I can't believe MS is able to get away with selling it as a brand-new OS. It's XP all over again. It's such a minor upgrade on Vista that it should've been a service pack, but we all know the only reason it's being released is so that Microsoft doesn't have to support XP and all corporations are forced to upgrade (if they don't move to Linux/Mac). Don't get me wrong, I love the stability of it and it seems to run a lot faster than Vista, especially on older hardware. But it just isn't a new operating system.
-Omer

I really don't know why everyone is so harsh on Vista. Yes, when it was first released, there was a huge lack of drivers and many program compatibility issues. However, we have been running it in our own office for quite some time and have deployed it for the few customers that listened to us instead of you nay-sayers. We have found it to be quite stable, at least as stable as XP, and definitely more secure. We see lots of XP PCs every day infected with tons of malware. The only time we saw a Vista PC infected, we asked the user if he clicked OK when the UAC asked permission to install the malware, and of course he said yes.

Vista is not perfect. No operating system has ever been. But I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me.
-Paul

Posted by Doug Barney on February 04, 20090 comments

Vista Service Pack 2

Windows 7 is built on the Vista base, and I assumed that meant it would be slow, unstable and incompatible. But Microsoft has seemingly worked wonders with this code, and Windows 7 appears in every way to be a winner. The question is: Did any of this magic rub off on Vista SP2? If so, that could be a swell OS. We'll find out by the middle of the year, SP2's expected general release date.

Posted by Doug Barney on February 02, 20090 comments

Firefox and Chrome Clickjacked

Chrome and Firefox wish they had this feature, as their browsers are vulnerable to these attacks More

Posted by Doug Barney on February 02, 20090 comments

Mailbag: Browser Security, Microsoft Layoffs

I wasn't sure whether or not to chuckle or just shake my head at some of the reasons people prefer IE. I acknowledge that IE has some advantages, such as the remote install to large numbers of workstations, but that is just a reminder that no one product is the best at absolutely everything. Given the overall pros and cons, however, I much prefer Firefox.

I have a number of friends and family who have all been hit lately by various viruses and worms that came in through the browser, and (you guessed it) all are using IE. None of my Firefox-using friends and family were affected. Now, I am not certain if this is because Firefox is inherently more secure than IE, or if it is because people who use Firefox are more informed to begin with and thus take more steps to secure their PC. Aside from that, Firefox has a lot more features and is much more configurable, but the the deal-maker for me is the multi-platform support. IE is Windows-only, whereas Firefox works on all our platforms (including various Linuxes and Mac). Using a browser that only works on half of our systems doesn't make sense to me.
-Mike

I don't agree that Firefox is more secure than IE. As the network admin of a small firm with about 30 client PCs, I can open the WSUS console and immediately verify that IE is fully patched on every user's PC. I have no clue of the status of the Firefox installs on those same machines unless I visit each one and check it manually. I know there are enterprise products that serve this purpose for Firefox, but for businesses whose IT budgets don't support such tools, IE is much more likely to be patched, making it the more secure option.

I would rather browse in Firefox than IE 7 in almost every instance, but I'd much rather support IE. I hope IE 8 is improved enough that I can get Firefox off the client PCs permanently, or at least until they develop a no-cost way to manage it.
-Dave

Posted by Doug Barney on February 02, 20090 comments

Windows 7 Ready When OEMs Are?

I may be wrong, but I'm hearing good things about Windows 7. In fact, it will be on the cover of our March issue -- and the story is entirely based on what you, the Redmond Report reader, had to say.

Posted by Doug Barney on February 02, 20090 comments

Windows 7 Undergoes Federal Inspection

This all stems from the 2002 final antitrust judgment that dictated Microsoft open the specs and APIs to the market just as much as they're open to Redmond insiders. Since then, there have been complaints back and forth that Windows isn't open enough, but by and large the industry has been satisfied. Changes were made, but speaking as someone who covered the Justice Department investigation, it was more of a wrist slap than a body blow.

Posted by Doug Barney on January 30, 20090 comments

RedmondReport.com Rocks!

Do me a favor -- More

Posted by Doug Barney on January 30, 20090 comments

The EU Takes Tougher Windows Stand

The authorities, especially those in the States, have essentially conceded to Microsoft the right to continue this bundling and the tight integration (it takes mad IT skills to delete IE from a Windows machine). The EU, however, never forgot and may force Microsoft not to remove IE, but to fully disable the browser.

Posted by Doug Barney on January 30, 20090 comments