Yes, make two SKU but...

Only two SKUs, but consumers need most of what you call "business" level features.

Make the dividing line the premium features such as software virtualization, expanded distribution tools and enhanced management tools while putting the rest into the base version. Features like backup, previous versions, security and DVD burning are necessary everywhere.

It it is very nice to be able to run a VPC to browse the web keeping your physical system safe. So include license to allow the ability to run as VPC in the base version would be appreciated.

So, to follow the Vista SKUs, make Vista Ultimate the standard version and Vista Enterprise the upscale business version.

And finally, make the OS available without the stupid Software Assurance tie-in crap you're pushing. No one wants to rent their OS! Sell an maintenance / upgrade assurance program separately and quit tying features into the program.

Windows and MacOS

As a Mac user, I am obviously going to side in Apple's favour in the perennial debate,

but I think it fair to point out that Apple do not have the stranglehold over OEM companies

that Microsoft do. Apple only get paid for a shipped OSX (notionally) when they also ship

an actual Mac. I say 'notionally' because they can't really 'pay themselves', can they ?

-

Microsoft, on the other hand, are absolved from the responsibility of having to actually

create any computers and yet their revenue stream is astronomically high because of OEM

'deals'.

-

I think that Apple's burgeoning market share is well deserved, considering that they are not

playing the numbers game with OEM firms, and that their reputation rests solely on the

innovative synergy of their hardware and OS (iTunes and iPhone problems

notwithstanding).

-

To a great extent, Microsoft's policies remind me of buying a rail ticket in England 25

years ago - the number of bewildering fare options almost tended to put one off the idea of

travelling at all ...

Why do you need a netbook edition?

I'm currently running 7 Ultimate Beta on my Eee1000H and it flies - so why do I need a cut down netbook version? (aside from making Microsoft money of course :)

It even uses the two virtual cores of the machine in a better manner than XP (where one core was maxed out the machine stoped on XP, with 7 I keeps on ticking :))

Bring on the RTM so I can whack it on my main machines as well!

Aero versus Aero Glass

Quote: "It [presumably Vista Home Basic] doesn't even have the Aero interface of the others, a fact that has landed Microsoft in legal hot water with customers who feel cheated."

Actually, Vista Home Basic uses the Aero interface by default, just not Aero Glass.

Sell the bits separately

Why not sell the extra parts separately?

If the basic version does most of what I want, but I'd like to join a domain and use virtualisation, I should be able to pay a (small) extra amount to download and use those features, without having to pay for all the stuff I don't need.

If they did that with IE8 then maybe the EC would leave them alone.

Lots of SKU's

Microsoft have customers with different needs. If those needs involve running legacy software designed for Windows, then Microsoft can make them pay through the nose. If a customer only needs Firefox, then Microsoft needs a cheap option to prevent users getting accustomed to Linux. Microsoft have skill at dividing customers by needs, and charging what they can get away with.

Apple has chosen a market segment that will pay money for something that gets the job done without having to learn about options. Apple customers may be paying for features that they do not need, but in the opinion of those customers, it is worth the money to avoid wasting time making a choice.

Each business model appears to work as both companies understand their customers.

SKUs a PITA for testers

I'm currently system testing some software I've written. I'm the sole developer with limited resources but have to test on a minimum of Home Basic and the business editions of Vista (I'm assuming - perhaps incorrectly - that if it works on those two it will work on anything).

A separate netbook edition will just be another thing we have to test on AND will require a physical machine to test it. At least all the others can be created as VMs on the server for an RDP. And one extra thing to test might not sound like much but that's 50% more testing. In my case, three months rather than two.

Windows CE

So where does this leave Windows CE?

It's clear that people don't want cut-down Windows on cut-down machines, they want full blown Windows, be it XP or otherwise. CE may have had a purpose when the hardware was limited, but we're now able to make devices as small and light as the original CE mini laptops but with full laptop features and battery life.

If there is a netBook version of Windows 7, where will that leave their official line on CE, or whatever it's called these days?

The real reason for many SKUs

There's no technical justification for multiple SKUs in the OS, save for the 32/64-bit distinction. If you have truly massive iron, the OS might find itself managing many gigs of RAM and dozens of processors, but the algorithms for doing that efficiently will work perfectly well if they find themselves on a single core with only 128MB of RAM, and if you really feel you need to take shortcuts for performance reasons, there is this thing called a conditional branch in the instruction set. It might add a few dozen kilobytes to the size of your kernel image.

No, Microsoft's many-SKUed OS results from the fact that they differ in the applications and tools bloat that is bundled. MS could sell that separately, rather like all their competitors in those markets have to. But then they wouldn't be (illegally) leveraging their OS monopoly into those other markets, and that would never do. It would also be possible for customers to buy the OS cheaply and only pay for the extras as and when they wanted them, rather than having to predict everything they will ever want to do with the computer at the moment that they buy it.

Don't hold your breath

The netbook arena is already so cut throat that OEM's are promoting cheaper Linux versions alongside XP, something that MS had by fair means or foul managed to dissuade them from even considering for Desktops and Laptops.

Lots of versions allows MS to set tiered pricing all the way up to the insanely profitable "Windows Awesome™".

If MS dropped to 2 versions, the consumer variant would inevitably gravitate to the minimal profit Netbook pricing regardless of what system it was dropped onto causing the Business variant pricing to fall in kind because otherwise it's going to look stupidly overpriced in comparison.

Fuck the users, that's not going to go down well with the shareholders.

no title

MS will always do at least 2 systems so they can charge a premium for domain logon. They will also do different versions for the eu than the US with teh new anti trust thing going on, but charge more for the cut down version making sure nobody buys them.

There is no reason for more than one version. They build the complete package then cut stuff out.

Better idea

Home users, 3 SKU's - one Home Basic netbook-y one, one Home (just plain Home) mid-range one, and one all-singing all-dancing Home Ultimate version (No Domain membership, but virtualisation for the power users) Allow cross-grading. I buy license for basic, I pay a bit more to get a new key that activates the additional features in the mid-range. Pay a bit more for Home Ultimate.

One Business version, using the Basic as the base, but with REQUIRED Domain membership, Active Directory, and a license management server. Pay for the software dev guys/admins/whoever needs it to get virtualisation. Manage other features, as if they were snap-ins. Also throw in free XP Pro licenses just because NewWindows might just suck royally.

Also, hot desking becomes a reality, manage what software is installed where based on Active Directory profiles, both Computer and User. Heck, why not just bring back thin clients, but with enough grunt to run Photoshop and AutoCAD Architecture or worse.

title

Ignoring all the other SKU's the XP Home/ XP Pro system worked well, with the professional version being a superset of Home.

I resented Vista because Vista Business wasn't a superset of Home Premuim - to get all of it, you needed Vista Ultimate, and even then, it's only got the consumer lifecycle, insted of the extended business support options. That, and Ultimate Extras was epic fail.

My two cents is that there should be 2 versions; Windows 7 Home, and Windows 7 Professional, with the pro being the Home + More. With the modular Add/remove components, you can just remove any parts of the home SKU that businesses don't want to run.

At A Push, I suppose I could let an Open Licence Windows 7 Enterprise version go....

SKU it out the window

There are just far too many. Two at most is what they should move to, on the desktop field a consumer and a business model, both with the same features, but different support packages.

As for the server field, they could trim down the crap there as well, and it would serve them well indeed in the future.

Apple also

Apple also gets paid when people with Tiger buy a copy of Leopard, etc. It's not just the "get it on the machine" thing that is, actually, more common with WIndows. New OS purchase for existing machines is a substantial chunk of revenue for Apple

well..

"How about a single SKU that is configurable on install?

The installer asks a simple question: Which option do you want? and then gives you three options: Home cofiguration, Business configuration or Custom, which lets admins and power users install the features they want.

One price, one SKU and everyone's happy."

i believe vista was actually like this, the disc has all the versions on it, all you needed was the correct key to install and activate the relevant version.

Oh and the person about the linux distro and just downloading and installing the bit you want... again... the AVERAGE end user (i.e not you) will not be able to do that and will just get confused.

Also don't get the complaints about vista versions ,we have home basic (xp home), home premium (xp media center), business (xp profession) and ultimate which has everything and more (business doesn't have the media center stuff, as its for business).

If i remember correctly the 5th version is a cripple version for release in certian countries with high level of piracy or something, and i think there was a equivilent xp version (not sure tho, would need more research.

basically all but 1 of the actual proper versions has a xp equivilent.

One SKU To Rule Them All

I don't think even the separation of business and consumer versions is a good idea. There should be just one version that allows the user to select from a limited set of combined features. For instance, they could install for a netbook, a consumer desktop, or a business desktop. After the initial install, they can add features they need that are missing from their selected initial installation.

For instance, I am a programmer, so I need the ability to remote in, and advanced networking options. At the same time, I want the ability to write to a DVD, and some of the multimedia features. Microsoft's usage models never seem to fit me, and it seems you may be stuck in the same mind-set.

I think that if they want to separate into SKU's, we could reasonably expect separate versions for 32-bit processors, and 64-bit processors, but honestly, even that is stretching it a bit. Microsoft needs to realize that people can't afford $400 for an OS (or even $200). I think Apple's got it right - $130 for an all-you-can-eat OS. It's going to be difficult enough for me to want to use Weven (Windows7), but the cost will pretty much keep me at Windows XP until .Net is no longer compatible with it, and then, I'll probably switch to Linux.

Not likely

It would be very nice if there was only one version of Windows, so that I would have all the features of Windows Server for the price of Home or Basic. But Microsoft makes more money if it can charge what different markets will bear, and so the only thing that would encourage it to charge less money for Windows is... competition.

Unfortunately, OS X and Linux together aren't much of that for Windows, at least not yet.

configurable SKU, not so great for granny

One configurable SKU is a great idea for a corporate, managed environment, or where you have people who know that the computer is the box under the desk, not the moving picture box with the little blue E controlled by a rat.

For the numpties that just buy a PC and use what they get, who decides what they need? The big OEM's already throw on enough crapware as is without deciding what Windows components to include. At least with modularity, the OEM's can include the little blue E as a choice rather than as a forced bundle.

Businesses want the business edition

As it forces the users to use it for business only, businesses do not want people to play with their machines and thats why it does not contain the same features, and fun stuff is crippleware even if it has to be installed afterwards.

The consumers real options were home basic, home premium and ultimate. I agree with users that it should really be fewer SKUs, probably three main versions home, business and professional. Where home and business have their own sub set of features and professional combining the both of them.

This way we get two options for consumers (home and professional) and two for business(business and professional). But the main issue is windows ultimate was wildly overpriced for the features it provided if it cost a little more or the same as the business edition people wouldn't have complained as much.

Windows 6 Sku's

Why would a consumer not possibly want remote access and protection against hardware failures? Why is this only for businesses? As a user, all options should be available. If you want to have a consumer and a business version, all options shoudl be available to be used, but each version could be tailored for that particular segment. For example, you have a consumer that have DVD software and games installed by default and terminal services off by default while the business might be the opposite. However, don't give an take on feature sets just because you don't think one segment will want that. Tha'ts where the problem is. I'm surprised the article goes into bringing it all up and then offers a solution that is the same as the problem itself.

I'd settle for one new feature...

Suck less. Is that too much to ask for? I don't really care about the multiple SKUs. I think it's astoundingly idiotic, but I'll be able to get whatever I want from my Uni. So should I ever feel the overwhelming desire to get a crap OS, I'll have my pick.

Mo Money

It allows M$ to charge more money for their OS without having to say they are jacking up the price. "You see, it costs $199 because of all the new features. You can get Home for the same price as our old OS which is pretty much like your old OS with a new theme and it uses 45% of the processor just for being Windows now."

No one wants to be stuck missing a needed feature after they have just built their system and loaded the OS, all their apps and all their data.

Ahh remember the good ole days when development shops wrote new functionality in versions at near the same price as their old version. You know, because they wanted to keep your business? M$ is just trying to leverage the fact that it's entrenched by squeezing more blood from the stone.

PS: I DO prefer Windows over Mac or Linux mainly because it's what I know and I'm a software developer. I'm still allowed to dislike their practices.

Distinction Client Server?

Why the distinction between client and server? What I want is a 'workstation'. A computer I can install software one which can not only run that software locally, but also act as an occasional application server so friends can also use them, by logging into my computer. Every cheap Linux distribution does that. Even Windows did that in version 2000. All Windows Vista has is a lobotomised RDP implementation which cannot do anything more than VNC already does for free.

Am I the only one?

"During the recent second quarter, though, the wheels fell off Microsoft's plan and sales of all premium editions to PC manufacturers fell 11 points to 64 per cent, as sales of the PCs capable of running them crashed."

I read that as "the PC's running them crashed."

Multiple SKUs are a bad idea for Microsoft

if they were only to recognise it. People buy computers to run software. Developers write software to make use of the opperating system. If a top-end SKU has a feature that they'd like to use, they would limit their market by using it. Result: code is written for the lowest common denominator (and will maybe give you bonus features if the OS SKU supports it). Provide just one SKU and developers will code to make use of all it's features, which will make the OS more attractive to PC buyers.

FAO the Reg

Please stop putting that demented cunts photo up where people can see it without any warning.

@Dave

Doesn't matter how many. If you find you've got the "wrong" version, just get another.

BSA will sue your ass into the ground if you try that with Vista/7.

RE: Dutch dell

>I was flabbergasted when I received my new Dell in the

>Netherlands complete with the only OS option of Vista

>(I took Basic) in Dutch, and tried to change the language

>to English unsuccessfully. I mean, they use a translation

>library, right? They don't recompile afresh for each language?

Considering the Dell website clearly states the language of Windows you're buying, and usually offers the option of English or Dutch, I can understand why you're posting as AC.

From what I understand it's an hard translation, they have different binaries for each language..

Of course we run the English version, as it's kinda annoying googling windows error messages in anything other than English......

@Mark

"However, all these SKU's STILL make Vista need 2GB of memory and 8-10GB of disk.

WHERE'S THE FRIGGING LOSS OF WEIGHT??????"

First, I've got a dozen Vista Business machines at work right now, 10 of them are 1GB machines, 2 with 2GB and all of them running Pentium dual core and Intel onboard graphics. All are speedy, it's just the 2GB machines stay speedy with a *lot* more open.

So no, Vista doesn't require 2GB. As for 8-10GB of disk space, each of these sub $500 machines has a 160GB hard drive. Why am I caring about 10GB for the OS again?

The loss of weight is in complexity, not code. Every Vista user, from Basic to Ultimate has *exactly* the same code! All you have to do to upgrade is pay MS the difference, and type in the code they give you. Instant upgrade.

Why do you care if the OS is taking up maybe 6-7% of the hard drive? You don't want to use the business features, you don't have to. You don't want to use the home theatre features, you don't have to.

In fact you can make sure nobody else can either...

Of course if your system is so old all you have is a 20GB hard drive, well, you better address your Penguin as "good puppy", hadn't you? :)

Windows 7

I'm impressed with the Windows 7 Beta so far.

If they release 1 sku it will be the icing on the cake.

I have lost count of the number of times I have been asked to install a server for a small business, and found they are all running XP home (no domain option).

Make it small, fast, secure and affordable....and MS will be on to a winner