PDA

View Full Version : Apple wisdom ignored by Windows 7 sextuplets


MacBytes
Feb 4, 2009, 08:31 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Microsoft
Link: Apple wisdom ignored by Windows 7 sextuplets (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090204093114)
Description:: Thought that Windows 7 would avoid the complicated marketing mess that was Vista by coming in an easy to understand single version like OS X? Think again, Microsoft has confirmed no less than six versions of the new operating system.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Hyde244
Feb 4, 2009, 08:49 AM
You've gotta be kidding me.

Windows 7 has looked good so far, but comeon Microsoft! Don't repeat the failure!

r0k
Feb 4, 2009, 08:55 AM
Go down to your local home center and pick up a flashlight. You know. The one that shines around when windows is looking for things? Yeah. One that looks like that. Now get a box large enough for the flashlight. Put the flashlight in the box. Print out this note and put it in the box:

Dear Microsoft,

There are a lot of large American companies in deep trouble in this troubled economy. Some are on the verge of collapse. Others are spending billions in bailout money on expensive junkets and parties. Most, including you are laying off.

A lot of this is unavoidable in such a terrible economy. But some of it is deserved, which brings me to your case. SIX FLAVORS OF WINDOWS SEVEN? Are you out of your fricking mind? Do you really think people want to pay EXTRA to run more than 3 apps at a time when they can get a Linux CD free in a magazine that only costs $4? Are you nuts? Six flavors?

Meanwhile, that little kid down the block. You know. That upstart little kid down in Cupertino who buried your Zune without lifting a finger? That kid. Well that kid has figured out how to make ONE flavor of OS do everything from a handheld to a phone to a server and you are trying to palm off 7 flavors of one OS? Take this flashlight, install the heaviest batteries you can find and GO BEAT THE IDIOT OVER THE HEAD WHO DECIDED YOU NEED SIX FLAVORS OF WINDOWS SEVEN.

Sincerely,

Your Customer.
Ok now seal the box, apply postage (which of course costs more than a copy of Ubuntu but this is for a good cause). Address the package as follows:

Microsoft
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

Now put the package in the mail and hope somebody at M$ opens and reads it before M$ manages to alienate the Windows fanboys they still have.

And yes, I deleted my iso of windows 7 after I saw the sku list for Windows 7 (http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/windows-7-skus-announced-yes-your-worst-nightmare-has-come-to/). In fact, I also deleted some older Ubuntu iso's I had lying around and I got over 5 gig back, including the now gone windows 7 dvd iso. It felt good.

( I posted this elsewhere (http://forum.brighthand.com/showthread.php?t=266026)but it really belongs here too)

speakerwizard
Feb 4, 2009, 09:04 AM
people are now reporting they are doing away with the basic ones for the western market now.

zombitronic
Feb 4, 2009, 09:05 AM
Guys! I just got an exclusive screen shot of Snow Leopard Starter!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

Santa Rosa
Feb 4, 2009, 09:31 AM
Guys! I just got an exclusive screen shot of Snow Leopard Starter!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

Will still be more advanced than Windows 7 Ultimate :D

bobdgil
Feb 4, 2009, 09:34 AM
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but let's be honest. Apple does not have only one version of OS X. Even ignoring the iPhone OS, which is definitely not the same operating system as Mac OS X, there is this thing called Mac OS X Server, which I don't see as being any different than selling a premium version. Regardless of the fact that most consumers don't need the server version, and that servers can easily run on regular OS X, the fact still remains that there are multiple versions of OS X, albeit fewer than Windows.

johnqh
Feb 4, 2009, 09:35 AM
Will still be more advanced than Windows 7 Ultimate :D

Actually, Snow Leopard Starter would be great for netbooks. ;-)

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 09:37 AM
In Microsoft's Defense,

Only 2 of these will REALLY be market to consumers.

Starter seems like a netbook kind of OS (smart if you ask me) and Home Basic will not be wide spread. Home basic will be marketed for third world countries who need basic computers to use. The US will not likely see this very much at all. The US may likely not see starter very much (except hopefully netbooks) and home basic will probably not make US shores.

The two marketed to consumers are Home Premium and Professional.

Enterprise is for volume licensing only, so consumers will not have this option, and ultimate is listed for limited OEM and Retail. It is fully featured and directed at tweakers and need everything.

So there are 2 versions that will be marketed toward consumers (Leopard / Leopard Server).

You guys REALLY need to start reading before you post and think about this stuff. The OS X market isn't near as big as the Windows Market. Windows requires multiplle versions because if not, then everyone pays full price for ultimate instead of only getting what they need in Home Premium.

Most people don't even know what Branch Cache, Bitlocking, and Direct Access are. And if they do know, then they need it and they will buy Ultimate. If not, then they really only have professional and home premium to fall back on. Then, when you have only those 2 options, then you are back to where Windows XP was. Retail users has the option for Premium (Home) and Professional (Professional).

Get over yourselves and stop foaming at the mouth. The decision makes sense and it allows Microsoft to target the smallest of markets and the biggest of markets.

It makes sense.

MarkSTi04
Feb 4, 2009, 09:44 AM
All I can say is WOW!

I'm sure glad I got my Mac. There is no way I was gonna buy a Vista machine. Now this windows 7 stuff just turns me off more from MS. If I do have to run windows it will be XP in boot camp on my mac untill I can update the internals on my tower.

Santa Rosa
Feb 4, 2009, 09:45 AM
In Microsoft's Defense,

Only 2 of these will REALLY be market to consumers.

Starter and Home Basic will not be wide spread. They will be marketed for third world countries who need basic computers to use. The US will not likely see either of these.

The two marketed to consumers are Home Premium and Professional.

Enterprise is for volume licensing only, so consumers will not have this option, and ultimate is listed for limited OEM and Retail. It is fully featured and directed at tweakers and need everything.

So there are 2 versions that will be marketed toward consumers (Leopard / Leopard Server).

You guys REALLY need to start reading before you post and think about this stuff. The OS X market isn't near as big as the Windows Market. Windows requires multiplle versions because if not, then everyone pays full price for ultimate instead of only getting what they need in Home Premium.

Most people don't even know what Branch Cache, Bitlocking, and Direct Access are. And if they do know, then they need it and they will buy Ultimate. If not, then they really only have professional and home premium to fall back on. Then, when you have only those 2 options, then you are back to where Windows XP was. Retail users has the option for Premium (Home) and Professional (Professional).

Get over yourselves and stop foaming at the mouth. The decision makes sense and it allows Microsoft to target the smallest of markets and the biggest of markets.

It makes sense.

You make a fair point about how they say that only two versions will be marketed. Thats the consensus at the moment.

I can't see Microsoft sticking to this for some reason. They will get greedy again and have all the version available for purchase in some form or other. It seems strange to make a range of products and only allow a few of them to be purchase, where the other products fill the gaps by being installed only when you buy specific hardware.

I think their best strategy would have been to develop Windows 7 with all the features in one, maybe two editions, then have the operating system enable and disable certain features depending upon what hardware it was running on, while also giving the end user the ability to make adjustments to its judgement.

Im really liking Apple's strategy to be perfectly honest. One system that's feature complete and highly optimized. In my opinion the Windows 7 strategy compared to that doesn't make sense.

Theophany
Feb 4, 2009, 09:52 AM
In Microsoft's Defense,

Only 2 of these will REALLY be market to consumers.

...

It makes sense.

You could have summed that up much more easily by saying that Microsoft is a software company, only making the OS, and is thus incomparable to Apple in that respect. The two business work differently to promote and sell their product, you can't compare six versions of W7 to one version of OS X for all consumers and one version of OS X for server monkeys.

Six versions is ridiculous, but it isn't an opportunity for one-upmanship and saying it's a reason that Apple is better.

MarkSTi04
Feb 4, 2009, 09:55 AM
To that effect though the cost of Windows 7 with the 2 versions that they are gonna promote will still cost more than OS X. I think Vista Basic is still $199.00 when OS X is only $129.00

The price difference alone between these two and compare the features right out of the box, OS X has it beat!

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 09:59 AM
You make a fair point about how they say that only two versions will be marketed. Thats the consensus at the moment.

I can't see Microsoft sticking to this for some reason. They will get greedy again and have all the version available for purchase in some form or other. It seems strange to make a range of products and only allow a few of them to be purchase, where the other products fill the gaps by being installed only when you buy specific hardware.

I think their best strategy would have been to develop Windows 7 with all the features in one, maybe two editions, then have the operating system enable and disable certain features depending upon what hardware it was running on, while also giving the end user the ability to make adjustments to its judgement.

Im really liking Apple's strategy to be perfectly honest. One system that's feature complete and highly optimized. In my opinion the Windows 7 strategy compared to that doesn't make sense.

OS X is not 1 version and feature complete. If it was feature complete, then I wouldn't have to buy OS X Server to have proper server capability. Just like OS X has the 2 versions windows will have 2 primary market versions of Windows.

We REALLY need to remember how many amounts of enterprise installations Windows has. OSX can not currently come anywhere near the Enterprise options of Windows simply because of the software support.

Enterprise practically REQUIRES Exchange and OS X has no proper Exchange support. Even Entourage is a terrible program.

There is no way that Microsoft can have 2 versions and done. It just isn't possible.

The reason they shy away from "Checkmark this, checkmark that..." is the same reason that Apple doesn't do that. Users do not know what they need because they don't need anything special. And the users who DO know what they need KNOW what they need.

Survey after survey, and demographic study after demographic study shows that people hate unchecking and checking options because it is too much to think about and they do not know what they need normally.

This will all work itself out. The multiple versions of Vista was terrible because they were ALL available to end users (except enterprise). This time around, we will only be seeing 2 and those are the equivalent of Home and Professional.

d21mike
Feb 4, 2009, 10:03 AM
If you go to your local best buy you will only see 1 version. Home Premium. This was the same as with XP. If you wanted the Professional Version it was more difficulat to get. Most people will never see more the 1 version so really not a problem. Also, with Windows 7 I understand that you only need to get a new key instead of another install disk. So easy to upgrade.

Now, if you want to complain you may want to look into the 64 bit versions. I just bought a new laptop with 4gb of memory. With 4gb you get the 64 bit version and with 3gb (or less) you get the 32bit version. So far no problems with the 64 bit version. Keeping fingers crossed. I tested the 64 bit version when Vista first came out and I had too many problems so switch back to the 32 bit verson.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 10:04 AM
To that effect though the cost of Windows 7 with the 2 versions that they are gonna promote will still cost more than OS X. I think Vista Basic is still $199.00 when OS X is only $129.00

The price difference alone between these two and compare the features right out of the box, OS X has it beat!

You can install Windows on practically any machine you want (EVEN A MAC!).

You HAVE to own a mac to use OS X. And by the time you own a mac, 9 times out of 10 you have paid the apple premium. I own 4 macs at home and rock several mac pros at work, so I know what that premium is.

Apple makes hardware too. Everytime they sell a computer, they guarantee OS sales. Windows does not have that luxury. They are software only and their sales are not guaranteed.

Even iTunes uses a tiered pricing scheme now. Sure you can limit yourself to an iPod for $.99 cents, but for $1.29, you can play your songs on pretty much anything. This is very similiar to Mac and Windows.

Ultimately, as mentioned above, Apple is a Hardware/Software company, and Windows is a Software company. What kind of business would they be running if they didn't make their software available to all sorts of markets?

zombitronic
Feb 4, 2009, 10:07 AM
The two marketed to consumers are Home Premium and Professional.

So there are 2 versions that will be marketed toward consumers (Leopard / Leopard Server).

I don't think this is a valid comparison. Leopard Server is not really marketed towards consumers, especially considering its price tag of $499, compared to Leopard Client at $129.

Windows 2008 Server is a valid comparison to Leopard Server.

Home Premium and Professional would be comparable to a hypothetical Crippled Leopard Client and the real Leopard Client.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 10:17 AM
I don't think this is a valid comparison. Leopard Server is not really marketed towards consumers, especially considering its price tag of $499, compared to Leopard Client at $129.

Windows 2008 Server is a valid comparison to Leopard Server.

Home Premium and Professional would be comparable to a hypothetical Crippled Leopard Client and the real Leopard Client.

You can't even begin to compare Leopard Server and Windows Server 2008 because you can install Server 2008 on any currently exist server pretty much. In order to install leopard server for its intended use, you need to buy at the very least a Mac Pro with FiberOptic card and for ACTUAL server use you would need to buy an actual Apple Server. The cost to move to Apple server is so great that many business are scared of it.

I belive a move to Apple server is worth it, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Windows Enterprise environments are ridiculously widespread. The software support is amazing and the best point of all.

OS X Server will NEVER support exchange and apple has nothing like exchange for it's users to take advantage of on an enterprise level.

There is no comparison to be made for OS X Server vs. Windows Server 2008. Windows Server 2008 is just more capable, more widespread, and the fact it has exchange is the killswitch. Do you realize how many enterprises rely on exchange to run the fundamentals of their business? There will be no switching going on there, I guarantee you.

BlizzardBomb
Feb 4, 2009, 10:23 AM
There's only two versions really, but what really baffles me is that they've already spent the money developing the Ultimate version so surely developing a Home Premium version means even more development time (to differentiate, take out features), which means more costs. You've already got the "best" version, stop wasting money crippling it!

nagromme
Feb 4, 2009, 10:26 AM
Even iTunes uses a tiered pricing scheme now. Sure you can limit yourself to an iPod for $.99 cents, but for $1.29, you can play your songs on pretty much anything. This is very similar to Mac and Windows.

Not true. iTunes DRM-free songs (which is most of them now--soon to be all) cost the SAME as the old DRM format. 99 cents US. The music labels have insisted on variable pricing (.69, .99, 1.29) based on popularity, but that doesn't start until April. And there was a short time when iTunes Plus was new that the labels demanded a higher price (1.29) for DRM-free, but that was short-lived.

OS X Server will NEVER support exchange and apple has nothing like exchange for it's users to take advantage of on an enterprise level.

There is no comparison to be made for OS X Server vs. Windows Server 2008. Windows Server 2008 is just more capable, more widespread, and the fact it has exchange is the killswitch. Do you realize how many enterprises rely on exchange to run the fundamentals of their business? There will be no switching going on there, I guarantee you.

Apple has been adding Exchange support, actually, as well as Exchange-like features in other apps, and there already HAS been switching going on from Windows to OS X servers.

OS X Server is in fact superior in many ways to Windows. It's not the right choice for every company (especially if Microsoft has them trapped in legacy requirements) but IS the right choice for some companies--and it's a choice some have been making, with great results.

mkrishnan
Feb 4, 2009, 10:32 AM
there is this thing called Mac OS X Server, which I don't see as being any different than selling a premium version.

I don't think anyone argues against this. But you do have to bear in mind that, while there are two versions of Leopard (the standard version and Server), in addition to all the versions of Windows Vista, there is also still Windows Server, which is a completely different product that is not included in the extensive version list of Vista.

Anyways, I think MS should really look at how much additional money they make off this morass and seriously just consider shipping a single disk that can be installed in different ways for different systems... the different levels of functionality are fine -- making a user buy one and then upgrade between them is confusing and silly, and I really don't believe MS makes a lot of money off it.

nick9191
Feb 4, 2009, 10:40 AM
In Microsoft's Defense,

Only 2 of these will REALLY be market to consumers.

Starter seems like a netbook kind of OS (smart if you ask me) and Home Basic will not be wide spread. Home basic will be marketed for third world countries who need basic computers to use. The US will not likely see this very much at all. The US may likely not see starter very much (except hopefully netbooks) and home basic will probably not make US shores.

The two marketed to consumers are Home Premium and Professional.

Enterprise is for volume licensing only, so consumers will not have this option, and ultimate is listed for limited OEM and Retail. It is fully featured and directed at tweakers and need everything.

So there are 2 versions that will be marketed toward consumers (Leopard / Leopard Server).

You guys REALLY need to start reading before you post and think about this stuff. The OS X market isn't near as big as the Windows Market. Windows requires multiplle versions because if not, then everyone pays full price for ultimate instead of only getting what they need in Home Premium.

Most people don't even know what Branch Cache, Bitlocking, and Direct Access are. And if they do know, then they need it and they will buy Ultimate. If not, then they really only have professional and home premium to fall back on. Then, when you have only those 2 options, then you are back to where Windows XP was. Retail users has the option for Premium (Home) and Professional (Professional).

Get over yourselves and stop foaming at the mouth. The decision makes sense and it allows Microsoft to target the smallest of markets and the biggest of markets.

It makes sense.

Firstly Home Basic is not for third world countries. Starter is for third world countries (where they sell about 3 copies a year because of the high rate of piracy and non existent piracy laws there). Secondly Business is not marketed to consumers at all, Ultimate, Home Premium and... you guessed it Home Basic are the three consumer versions within the developed world. Whilst Ultimate technically is for businesses, there are a lot of people who just want the most expensive version whether they need it or not. All the OEM's offer Ultimate on their high end consumer machines.

Home Basic is the full deal, The only thing it lacks is Aero, Media Center (which is not included in Business or Enterprise anyway), and the business features found in business editions.

Lastly, you are absolutely mad if you think Leopard Server is marketed towards consumers. There is one consumer version of Leopard, it's called Leopard, that's it.


Even iTunes uses a tiered pricing scheme now. Sure you can limit yourself to an iPod for $.99 cents, but for $1.29, you can play your songs on pretty much anything. This is very similiar to Mac and Windows.
All music on iTunes, whether it costs $.69, $.99 or $1.29 is DRM free 256kbit AAC. You can run it on as many computers or devices (that support AAC) as you own.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 10:47 AM
Not true. iTunes DRM-free songs (which is most of them now--soon to be all) cost the SAME as the old DRM format. 99 cents US. The music labels have insisted on variable pricing (.69, .99, 1.29) based on popularity, but that doesn't start until April. And there was a short time when iTunes Plus was new that the labels demanded a higher price (1.29) for DRM-free, but that was short-lived.



Apple has been adding Exchange support, actually, as well as Exchange-like features in other apps, and there already HAS been switching going on from Windows to OS X servers.

OS X Server is in fact superior in many ways to Windows. It's not the right choice for every company (especially if Microsoft has them trapped in legacy requirements) but IS the right choice for some companies--and it's a choice some have been making, with great results.

There will always be switchers, it is not like some big movement began and people began to flock to OS X Server.

What I meant was that OS X Server will never be able to act as an exchange server. Apple is "adding" things is not good enough. The exchange foothold on the market is strong because it works and it works well. Mid size and enterprise businesses will not switch to "Exchange Like features" that their mobile devices do not support. Too many businesses users require mail to go and whether it is Blackberry Enterprise Server or Exchange, you can't use it on a Mac Server. Even SMALL businesses require this functionality.

Now if Apple releases MobileMEnterprise, then we are talking a different story. When that happens, then there is practically nothing that needs to be said. As long as people are willing to move to leopard server (initial hardware and client licensing investment) and as long as they are willing to setup new open directory users from active directory and switch over their entire infrastructure, then perfect.

Otherwise, businesses are dominated by Win Servers.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 10:56 AM
Firstly Home Basic is not for third world countries. Starter is for third world countries (where they sell about 3 copies a year because of the high rate of piracy and non existent piracy laws there). Secondly Business is not marketed to consumers at all, Ultimate, Home Premium and... you guessed it Home Basic are the three consumer versions within the developed world. Whilst Ultimate technically is for businesses, there are a lot of people who just want the most expensive version whether they need it or not. All the OEM's offer Ultimate on their high end consumer machines.

Home Basic is the full deal, The only thing it lacks is Aero, Media Center (which is not included in Business or Enterprise anyway), and the business features found in business editions.

Lastly, you are absolutely mad if you think Leopard Server is marketed towards consumers. There is one consumer version of Leopard, it's called Leopard, that's it.


All music on iTunes, whether it costs $.69, $.99 or $1.29 is DRM free 256kbit AAC. You can run it on as many computers or devices (that support AAC) as you own.


Let's get some facts straight here. Starter is for OEM use and limited to 3 applications running at a time (likely a netbook solution). Home Basic is for "Emerging Markets" which means third world countries and developing communities. US will likely not see this version. Here is the full breakdown directly from Microsoft:

Windows 7 Starter

* Available worldwide to OEMs on new PCs
* Missing Aero UI tweaks
* Limited to 3 simultaneous applications

Windows 7 Home Basic (Vista equivalent: $200)

* Only available in emerging markets
* Missing Aero UI tweaks

Windows 7 Home Premium (Vista equivalent: $260)

* Available worldwide, to OEMs and in retail
* Includes Aero UI tweaks
* Features multi-touch capabilities
* Adds "premium" games
* Adds media capabilities (Media Center, DVD playback, DVD creation, etc.)
* Can create home network groups

Windows 7 Professional (Vista equivalent: $300)

* Available worldwide, to OEMs and in retail
* Includes all features of Premium
* Adds enhanced networking capabilities (Remote Desktop host, domain support, offline folders, etc.)
* Adds Mobility Center
* Adds Presentation Mode

Windows 7 Enterprise

* Available only in volume licenses
* Includes all features of Professional
* Adds Branch Cache
* Adds Direct Access
* Adds BitLocker

Windows 7 Ultimate (Vista equivalent: $320)

* Limited OEM and retail availability
* Includes all features of Enterprise

Second, I perhaps used the wrong terminology when I said "marketed to consumers." I meant there are two available versions, both of which are sold in retail shops. I can admit I used the wrong terminology there and know perfectly well it is not "marketed" to consumers.

Finally, I was wrong about the iTunes things, it doesn't change the fact that Windows can run on damn near anything. Even Win XP runs perfectly on netbooks. You can only run OS X on a mac (except hackint0sh, since I know somebody will call me out on that). By the time you have invested in a mac, the "mac premium" already has payed for your OS 5 times over.

Apple is a hardware/software company that produces solely for itself. Windows is a Software company. Just like there are multiple tiers of MacBook Pros, there are multiple tiers of Windows Software.

Some would argue that last generation, the lowest end MacBook model should have had a SuperDrive, but it didn't. How about firewire on the current MacBooks.

No matter what any company does, nobody will be happy.

I am happy with my MacPro running Windows 7 under parallels. that is my choice. Everybody should have a choice like I did. There is no need to limit something to 1 price and 1 sku when you hold such a massive portion of the market. It is to many people to market to, too many incomes to span across, too many variables to consider.

Speedy2
Feb 4, 2009, 10:58 AM
Why does everyone mention OSX Server, which has nothing to do with Windows 7 ?

There will be a dedicated Windows Server with even more flavours and versions / license models / with or without Exchange+SQL Server etc

So please don't say 2 marketed Windows versions vs 2 marketed Mac OS versions, since this is simply WRONG. There is only one client Mac OS you can choose from, whereas regular PC consumers will have a confusing choice between at least 3 client Windows versions. If they buy from the business section of the Dell website, which is perfectly sensible for some, there will be even more.

Microsoft is milking its monopoly, that's all. There are no other reasons for the multitude of Windows versions, since the differences are tiny but well-chosen. Compare the price of Windows Ultimate to Windows XP Professional. It's a LOT more expensive.

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 11:07 AM
Six versions of Windows 7. Microsoft can't even get their numbers straight.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 11:09 AM
Why does everyone mention OSX Server, which has nothing to do with Windows 7 ?

There will be a dedicated Windows Server with even more flavours and versions / license models / with or without Exchange+SQL Server etc

So please don't say 2 marketed Windows versions vs 2 marketed Mac OS versions, since this is simply WRONG. There is only one client Mac OS you can choose from, whereas regular PC consumers will have a confusing choice between at least 3 client Windows versions. If they buy from the business section of the Dell website, which is perfectly sensible for some, there will be even more.

Microsoft is milking its monopoly, that's all. There are no other reasons for the multitude of Windows versions, since the differences are tiny but well-chosen. Compare the price of Windows Ultimate to Windows XP Professional. It's a LOT more expensive.

Ooohhh the choices are sooo confusing! I have to either choose between a home use version of windows... a professional version of windows... or OH MY GOD!!!! An ultimate version of windows!? I am soooo confused! All I want to do is send emails!?!?!? Do I need to get the ultimate version or will the home version work? Ohhh no! Nobody in the world can answer my questions, I am sooo confused!!

Give me a break. It is in the name. HOME. PROFESSIONAL. ULTIMATE.

Guess what home is for? Home use.
Guess what professional is for? Professional use. (If you need it, you will know, I assure you.)
Guess what ultimate is for? It's the ultimate version, why else would they call it ultimate.

It isn't confusing. Confusion :confused::confused::confused::confused: is just something that mindless apple supporters say to instill FUD in buyers. There is no confusion, the use is in the name.

Even if you were confused, I can most assure you there will be people that know what version you need in the store you are buying the software in.

Because if you don't know what version of windows you are need, you will very likely be asking somebody anyway.

Get over it, please. I love Apple computers just as much as anybody else here, but let's all quit being mindless drones for just ONE article.

Speedy2
Feb 4, 2009, 11:09 AM
In order to install leopard server for its intended use, you need to buy at the very least a Mac Pro with FiberOptic card and for ACTUAL server use you would need to buy an actual Apple Server. The cost to move to Apple server is so great that many business are scared of it.



The initial cost of the software or hardware is hardly a factor for most decisions about the server platform. No one cares if the server costs 2K or 3K if the person who sets it up costs 1K a day, regardless if it's a Mac or a PC.

The main reason why people buy Windows servers is because of the available server software and the good integration with Windows clients (which in turn is usually necessitated by Windows client software). Also, many decision makers have a vague knowledge of Windows clients and live under the wrong impression that they understand the complexity of a Windows server and thus regard them as easier to set up than "complicated" other platforms.

Speedy2
Feb 4, 2009, 11:13 AM
Get over it, please. I love Apple computers just as much as anybody else here, but let's all quit being mindless drones for just ONE article.


Dude, it sure isn't confusing me, but go out and ask some people on the street, which Windows versions suits them best.

It would be less confusing for them it the names were more appropriate:

Windows 7
Windows 7 Crippled
Windows 7 Even More Crippled
Windows 7 For Poor Countries
oops I almost forgot:
Windows XP (which is currently marketed as Windows 7 for Netbooks)

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 11:16 AM
This says it all:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E

Utterly void of good ideas, not to mention style and taste!

Microsoft is dying a slow death. How much more obvious can it be?

(Yeah, I know it has nothing to do with Windows7, but it's good for a laugh!)

Tallest Skil
Feb 4, 2009, 11:18 AM
This says it all:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E

Utterly void of good ideas, not to mention style and taste!

Microsoft is dying a slow death. How much more obvious can it be?

(Yeah, I know it has nothing to do with Windows7, but it's good for a laugh!)

The original name for that was Microsoft Band: Garage Edition. :D

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 11:21 AM
The initial cost of the software or hardware is hardly a factor for most decisions about the server platform. No one cares if the server costs 2K or 3K if the person who sets it up costs 1K a day, regardless if it's a Mac or a PC.

The main reason why people buy Windows servers is because of the available server software and the good integration with Windows clients (which in turn is usually necessitated by Windows client software). Also, many decision makers have a vague knowledge of Windows clients and live under the wrong impression that they understand the complexity of a Windows server and thus regard them as easier to set up than "complicated" other platforms.

I can assure you no apple server worth having will cost you two or three thousand dollars.

If you haven't gone to look at apple servers, you should. They are (for even a semi descent setup) $7,000 dollar investments for just ONE.

Maybe a windows server will run you 2 - 3 thousand for a semi descent setup.

I manage 2 Apple XServes, 2 Windows Web Servers, and 2 Windows File Servers.

The cost for management is not comparable. It is a typical Mac pricing vs. Windows pricing debate.

Proprietary hardware will always be more expensive. Those 8K setups do not even include XSAN.

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 11:26 AM
This says it all:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E

Utterly void of good ideas, not to mention style and taste!

Microsoft is dying a slow death. How much more obvious can it be?

(Yeah, I know it has nothing to do with Windows7, but it's good for a laugh!)

This is satire, right? Please tell me it's satire.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 11:26 AM
Dude, it sure isn't confusing me, but go out and ask some people on the street, which Windows versions suits them best.

It would be less confusing for them it the names were more appropriate:

Windows 7
Windows 7 Crippled
Windows 7 Even More Crippled
Windows 7 For Poor Countries
oops I almost forgot:
Windows XP (which is currently marketed as Windows 7 for Netbooks)

It is blatantly obvious you are just a rabid fanboy.

If you ask people on the street if they need a home version, a professional version, or an ultimate version, they can probably choose just by the name. If not, then all it takes is for them to ask a simple question.

And windows software isn't sold on the street, it is sold in stores that have people to help.

It is impossible to have conversation with people like you because you always resort to the childish antics.

OH THEY MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT WINDOWS CRAP BECAUSE IT IS SO FULL OF CRAP. THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT IT IN THEIR BUTTS AND CRAP IT OUT CUZ THATS WHAT IT IS IS CRAP. RABLLE RABBLE RABBLE.

Its obvious you don't know what you are talking about, it is rare that mindless apple supporters do.

At least I can support apple and not be an idiot. Thankfully.

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 11:28 AM
Insults are not an argument.

zombitronic
Feb 4, 2009, 11:31 AM
Guess what home is for? Home use.
Guess what professional is for? Professional use. (If you need it, you will know, I assure you.)
Guess what ultimate is for? It's the ultimate version, why else would they call it ultimate.

Guess what Leopard is for? Home use.
Guess what Leopard is for? Professional use.
Guess what Leopard is for? It's the ultimate version, why would they provide anything less?

The point is that many people were hoping for one version of Windows 7. If you don't need a feature of Windows 7 Ultimate, don't use it. Chances are, most users wouldn't even know it's there.

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 11:34 AM
This is satire, right? Please tell me it's satire.

Oh no, my friend. That is Microsoft *innovation* at work!

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 11:44 AM
Oh no, my friend. That is Microsoft *innovation* at work!

Or at least "Microsoft marketing" at work. Honestly, my first impression was that this video was a clever joke on Microsoft's image. The Dad talking to himself, the daughter with all those stickers on her laptop. But I should never assume that Microsoft's marketing efforts can't be completely lame. It reminds me of Apple's terrible advertising campaigns during the early '90s.

Bring back Butterfly Man!

Tallest Skil
Feb 4, 2009, 11:46 AM
... the daughter with all those stickers on her laptop.

Notice that it's a MacBook Pro with a flower over the Apple logo. :D

Torajima
Feb 4, 2009, 11:51 AM
You can't even begin to compare Leopard Server and Windows Server 2008 because you can install Server 2008 on any currently exist server pretty much. In order to install leopard server for its intended use, you need to buy at the very least a Mac Pro with FiberOptic card and for ACTUAL server use you would need to buy an actual Apple Server. The cost to move to Apple server is so great that many business are scared of it.

Friend, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't need Apple's Server Hardware to run their server software... I know people running it on their mac minis.

And the cost isn't what's keeping businesses away (that would be the fear of trying something new), the Apple Server is cheaper because you have unlimited licenses (unlike Microsoft who will nickel and dime you to death). Not to mention the cost of downtime... our Microsoft server crashes twice a month. Our linux server has crashed once in 5 years. Which would you prefer?

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 11:56 AM
Honestly, my first impression was that this video was a clever joke on Microsoft's image.

That's the beauty of Microsoft. They *are* the joke! Just when you think it can't get any cornier, any lamer, or any more devoid of style and taste...IT DOES!

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 11:58 AM
Friend, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't need Apple's Server Hardware to run their server software... I know people running it on their mac minis.

And the cost isn't what's keeping businesses away (that would be the fear of trying something new), the Apple Server is cheaper because you have unlimited licenses (unlike Microsoft who will nickel and dime you to death). Not to mention the cost of downtime... our Microsoft server crashes twice a month. Our linux server has crashed once in 5 years. Which would you prefer?

It crashes because you don't know how to manage it properly and your system of maintenance obviously isn't working.

You will also notice I said "In order to install Leopard server for its INTENDED use." Maybe that is rather vague, everybody has a different intention for leopard server. But my use of "intended" was for what the name of the software implies. I was basing a comparison of it being used as a proper server.

Even then, you can install win Server 2003 on a Dell Mini 9 or any other netbook. Even a mac mini. That is how lightweight it is.

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 12:03 PM
It crashes because you don't know how to manage it properly and your system of maintenance obviously isn't working.

Oh yeah, that's it...

You will also notice I said "In order to install Leopard server for its INTENDED use." Maybe that is rather vague, everybody has a different intention for leopard server. But my use of "intended" was for what the name of the software implies. I was basing a comparison of it being used as a proper server.

And what is this INTENDED use you speak of? You yourself said that "everybody has a different intention", which I don't think is true. You buy a server OS because you...drum roll, please...want a server!

OS X Server can run on any Mac pretty much. Yes, xServe is designed to work with OS X Server, but there's no reason one can't install Server on a Mac Mini (as the previous poster notes). Let's see...$600 for a Mac Mini + $999 for an unlimited client OS X Server license.

Sorry, Microsoft doesn't come close. What does Microsoft charge for an unlimited server license, by the way? Keeping in mind, of course, that OS X Server also includes an unlimited email server license, unlimited calendar server license, etc. How much in the M$ world?

pilotError
Feb 4, 2009, 12:15 PM
I heard ultimate is going to be renamed the Windows 7 Lose More Market Share edition.

d21mike
Feb 4, 2009, 12:17 PM
Oh yeah, that's it...

I happen to agree that it has something to do with your setup. Do you really believe that all of the Windows Servers in use crash as frequently as yours? Spend just a few minutes to think about it.

I have personally run multiple Windows Servers (small business) going back many years (now have Windows Server 2003 and 2008) with almost no downtime. I believe this is the norm for any business that is using a Windows Servers in a Production Environment.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 12:18 PM
Oh yeah, that's it...



And what is this INTENDED use you speak of? You yourself said that "everybody has a different intention", which I don't think is true. You buy a server OS because you...drum roll, please...want a server!

OS X Server can run on any Mac pretty much. Yes, xServe is designed to work with OS X Server, but there's no reason one can't install Server on a Mac Mini (as the previous poster notes). Let's see...$600 for a Mac Mini + $999 for an unlimited client OS X Server license.

Sorry, Microsoft doesn't come close. What does Microsoft charge for an unlimited server license, by the way? Keeping in mind, of course, that OS X Server also includes an unlimited email server license, unlimited calendar server license, etc. How much in the M$ world?

The fact you are even comparing apple's mail and calendar server to exchange is a joke.

You can not run a proper server on a mac mini. If we are going to talk REAL servers then you need at the VERY LEAST a Mac Pro. Just because you can install it and run it on a mini does not mean that it can support a server load. You even hinting that it can might be the reason your current servers are crashing, because you don't have the proper systems running. Just because you can install and run the OS on a computer doesn't mean it is a server, it just means you installed it and booted it up.

No mac mini can handle even a small load without coming to a crawl. If it could, then everyone would buy mac minis and run their enterprise on that.

Again, just because it installs on a mini doesn't mean it will come anywhere near being even a decent server.

I'll say it again, you need at the VERY LEAST a Mac Pro with a Fiber Optic card to run a decent OS X server that will be used as a proper server.

When I mentioned intention, I was humouring your "mac mini installation" theory. No actual server admin will run an actual server on a mac mini.

Again, maybe thats why your servers are crashing.

You aren't trying to run Win Server on a base model HP are you...

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 12:22 PM
I happen to agree that it has something to do with your setup. Do you really believe that all of the Windows Servers in use crash as frequently as yours? Spend just a few minutes to think about it.

I have personally run multiple Windows Servers (small business) going back many years (now have Windows Server 2003 and 2008) with almost no downtime. I believe this is the norm for any business that is using a Windows Servers in a Production Environment.

Thanks for bringing some sense to this conversation.

I also run multiple servers that have experienced just about no downtime. Even when they are down, it is for general maintenance. ANY server that crashes that often, no matter what the Server OS is, indicates a problem at the most fundamental level: Management.

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 12:30 PM
The fact you are even comparing apple's mail and calendar server to exchange is a joke.

I completely disagree. For large installations, maybe so, but what about small businesses with a few dozen employees?

My point is, for $1000, you have an UNLIMITED server license that includes file server, email, calendar, chat, wiki, etc, etc, etc. What does $1000 get you in the M$ world?

You can not run a proper server on a mac mini...No mac mini can handle even a small load without coming to a crawl. If it could, then everyone would buy mac minis and run their enterprise on that.

Um, I call BS. Just because a mini can't handle a huge load, that doesn't rule it out as a "proper" server. For *small* businesses and organizations, a mini works just fine. Plenty are using minis for this very purpose.

I'll say it again, you need at the VERY LEAST a Mac Pro with a Fiber Optic card to run a decent OS X server that will be used as a proper server.

Sure, if you're talking about an organization with lots of users and lots of traffic. But that isn't EVERY organization.

Again, maybe thats why your servers are crashing.

I'm not even running a server...

Speedy2
Feb 4, 2009, 12:34 PM
It is blatantly obvious you are just a rabid fanboy.



I don't even own a Mac nor an iPhone.

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 12:35 PM
I happen to agree that it has something to do with your setup. Do you really believe that all of the Windows Servers in use crash as frequently as yours? Spend just a few minutes to think about it.

First, I don't run a server. That was someone else's comment.

Second, no, of course I don't believe that every Windows Server crashes frequently. But they sure do seem to require a lot more "management" than other server platforms out there!

And while I hear/read a lot of complaints about Windows Server crashes, I encounter far fewer complaints about Linux or OS X. I know one business that just got so fed up with Windows Server that they switched to an XServer, even though they are 100% Windows clients. No more server issues now. Hmmm...

robbyx
Feb 4, 2009, 12:39 PM
It is blatantly obvious you are just a rabid fanboy.


As opposed to an (M$) apologist?

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 12:45 PM
As opposed to an (M$) apologist?

The last thing I am is a Microsoft apologist. You don't have to be an apologist to know that Windows Server is great server technology.

You are a fanboy when you can't hold a conversation without resorting to "M$" speak.

Also, sorry for accusing you of the bad server management, it was meant for the other guy.

Additionally. ANY business who relies on small home hardware for their "servers" is stupid. That is a risk and a half. Especially as apple owners, they should know that there are some things that just need to be done properly.

Spending more money on your OS than on your hardware is stupid no matter what way you slice it. It shows how much that person cares about their technology stability.

d21mike
Feb 4, 2009, 12:48 PM
First, I don't run a server. That was someone else's comment.

Second, no, of course I don't believe that every Windows Server crashes frequently. But they sure do seem to require a lot more "management" than other server platforms out there!

And while I hear/read a lot of complaints about Windows Server crashes, I encounter far fewer complaints about Linux or OS X. I know one business that just got so fed up with Windows Server that they switched to an XServer, even though they are 100% Windows clients. No more server issues now. Hmmm...

Yeah, I just realized you were not the person that made the original post.

As far as comparing Windows Servers to other Servers I can't really compare since I only use Windows. For me, I spend very little time with my Windows Servers. I pretty much buy the hardware install the software and do some intial setup and pretty much forget about them. I also have the Windows Update set to Auto Update at 2am. I also do not use them as an extra workstation which maybe some small business do. Just a guess.

coolfactor
Feb 4, 2009, 12:49 PM
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but let's be honest. Apple does not have only one version of OS X. Even ignoring the iPhone OS, which is definitely not the same operating system as Mac OS X, there is this thing called Mac OS X Server, which I don't see as being any different than selling a premium version. Regardless of the fact that most consumers don't need the server version, and that servers can easily run on regular OS X, the fact still remains that there are multiple versions of OS X, albeit fewer than Windows.

The article is not saying there's only one version of OS X. Of course there's not. But there is only one consumer version of Mac OS X. The server version is separate, just like Windows Server is separate. The other variants of OS X are not for Macs, they are for specialized devices.... iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV.

Speedy2
Feb 4, 2009, 12:50 PM
The cost for management is not comparable. It is a typical Mac pricing vs. Windows pricing debate.

Proprietary hardware will always be more expensive. Those 8K setups do not even include XSAN.

Base on your statements I severely doubt your expertise in the server business.

Maybe you have missed the past few years, but where exactly is Apple server hardware more proprietary than IBM's, Dell's or HP's? They all use their custom designed mainboards, case and cooling solution, the odd custom controller, but the rest is hardware off the shelf.

Apple XServes and Mac Pros are - hardware only - very comparative to an equally configured Dell or HP machine. That is because it is a very comparable hardware after all.

The license for the server OS is a lot cheaper on Mac OS.

However, Apple heavily depends on 3rd party support and does not offer anything close to what Dell and HP can give you. That makes a direct comparison difficult (and weighs heavily in favour of PC servers). Also, you can get far more hardware options directly from the big server companies. Again, Apple relies on 3rd parties for that (and fails, basically).

I've already mentioned the situation regarding server software.

Fact is, there is not much that justifies a Mac OS server unless you have mainly Mac clients. But it surely is neither the cost of the hardware nor of the software that keeps the majority from choosing Mac servers.

now, BTT

kurosov
Feb 4, 2009, 12:54 PM
It is blatantly obvious you are just a rabid fanboy.

If you ask people on the street if they need a home version, a professional version, or an ultimate version, they can probably choose just by the name. If not, then all it takes is for them to ask a simple question.

And windows software isn't sold on the street, it is sold in stores that have people to help.

It is impossible to have conversation with people like you because you always resort to the childish antics.

OH THEY MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT WINDOWS CRAP BECAUSE IT IS SO FULL OF CRAP. THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT IT IN THEIR BUTTS AND CRAP IT OUT CUZ THATS WHAT IT IS IS CRAP. RABLLE RABBLE RABBLE.

Its obvious you don't know what you are talking about, it is rare that mindless apple supporters do.

At least I can support apple and not be an idiot. Thankfully.

But that is what they did with vista. They built the OS then crippled its features, splitting it into a variety of seperate products. Just because a mac user is used to a single OS release regardless of uses and would like to see the same thing for windows it does not make them an apple "fanboy".

Microsoft do this for a multitude of reasons including the ability to bost a "cheaper" version of the OS while still making lost revenue back on the more expensive version. Many companies take part in this (compare prices of dells home pc's and workstations with other companies).

coolfactor
Feb 4, 2009, 12:58 PM
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but let's be honest. Apple does not have only one version of OS X. Even ignoring the iPhone OS, which is definitely not the same operating system as Mac OS X, there is this thing called Mac OS X Server, which I don't see as being any different than selling a premium version. Regardless of the fact that most consumers don't need the server version, and that servers can easily run on regular OS X, the fact still remains that there are multiple versions of OS X, albeit fewer than Windows.

The article is not saying there's only one version of OS X. Of course there's not. But there is only one consumer version of Mac OS X. The server version is separate, just like Windows Server is separate. The other variants of OS X are not for Macs, they are for specialized devices.... iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 01:00 PM
But that is what they did with vista. They built the OS then crippled its features, splitting it into a variety of seperate products. Just because a mac user is used to a single OS release regardless of uses and would like to see the same thing for windows it does not make them an apple "fanboy".

Microsoft do this for a multitude of reasons including the ability to bost a "cheaper" version of the OS while still making lost revenue back on the more expensive version. Many companies take part in this (compare prices of dells home pc's and workstations with other companies).

Yeah, it was very dumb when they did it with vista because of the massive number of consumer facing versions. Win 7 is different. Vista is undefendable on the end of multiple version, I won't argue that.

I was not accusing fanboyism because of people being "used" to a single OS version. I was accusing it because of the way opinions are expressed through giving examples of Micro$soft Crap, Micro$soft Crappier, etc...

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 01:03 PM
That's the beauty of Microsoft. They *are* the joke! Just when you think it can't get any cornier, any lamer, or any more devoid of style and taste...IT DOES!

Do tell. The funny part is that many people truly believe that Microsoft has succeeded on the basis of great marketing. But look at their marketing -- it has always stunk, and never seems to get any better. They were pretty widely lambasted for the huge numbers of versions of Vista, then they go and repeat that mistake with Windows 7. They never learn!

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 01:09 PM
Base on your statements I severely doubt your expertise in the server business.

Maybe you have missed the past few years, but where exactly is Apple server hardware more proprietary than IBM's, Dell's or HP's? They all use their custom designed mainboards, case and cooling solution, the odd custom controller, but the rest is hardware off the shelf.

Apple XServes and Mac Pros are - hardware only - very comparative to an equally configured Dell or HP machine. That is because it is a very comparable hardware after all.

The license for the server OS is a lot cheaper on Mac OS.

However, Apple heavily depends on 3rd party support and does not offer anything close to what Dell and HP can give you. That makes a direct comparison difficult (and weighs heavily in favour of PC servers). Also, you can get far more hardware options directly from the big server companies. Again, Apple relies on 3rd parties for that (and fails, basically).

I've already mentioned the situation regarding server software.

Fact is, there is not much that justifies a Mac OS server unless you have mainly Mac clients. But it surely is neither the cost of the hardware nor of the software that keeps the majority from choosing Mac servers.

now, BTT

Mac Pros and XServe hardware blow anything "comparable" out of the water. There is no comparison involved. The cost is a different story. Apple makes top notch hardware, there is no denying it.

I agree with the fact that you can only Justify OS server when you have mac clients. When you do this, it throws the "unlimited license" thing out the window. It doesn't matter to them how many licenses you use because you pay the mac premium on anything you buy from them. You are practically paying for a CAL license in every mac you buy.

Windows Server is different. Since it is software only, they are not guaranteed revenue through hardware streams. They have nothing to offset the cost of a CAL license.

That previous example is what I meant by "proprietary." The fact that OSX Server is most effective with mac clients.

That is not the say that Windows Server is perfect friends with mac clients. Leopard's Active Directory plug-in is desperately bad and with every new patch you never know if it will get better or worse.

OS X Server is great, but it is not ready for big time enterprise in my opinion. Web server? Yeah! File server? Yeah (afp is suggested though, which you can only do on a mac). Mail, Contacts, Calendars? Eh, not so much. Most big time enterprises rely WAY too heavily on those 3 things to change.

I wish just as much as anybody else here that MobileMe could be put on an OSX server and deploy it to enterprise users. I would do it right away. Until then though, exchange has nothing like it that comes anywhere close.

Everything else about each server is debatable down to the kilobyte. It is debatable about each as a web server, each as a file server, IIS vs. Apache, etc, etc.

I hope I get proven wrong soon, I'd love to see OS X Server hit the big time.

aarond12
Feb 4, 2009, 01:15 PM
You Windows apologists here are making me sick. :mad:

"Home Basic won't be widespread in the Western countries." Bulls--t. Every low-priced laptop on the market right now sells with Vista HOME BASIC. Do you truly expect this to change for Windows 7?

"Even Mac OS X has two versions!" Duh! Microsoft has two COMPLETELY SEPARATE VERSIONS of their operating systems for workstations (e.g., Vista/Windows 7) and servers (Server 2003/2008). You cannot use that justification. Moreover, Microsoft sells MULTIPLE VERSIONS of their SERVER software!

Microsoft has apparently gotten so big and fat that even their basic OS without any "bells and whistles" costs more than Mac OS X with the bells and whistles.

d21mike
Feb 4, 2009, 01:32 PM
You Windows apologists here are making me sick. :mad:

"Home Basic won't be widespread in the Western countries." Bulls--t. Every low-priced laptop on the market right now sells with Vista HOME BASIC. Do you truly expect this to change for Windows 7?

I just went to Best Buy Online to see which laptops are using Vista Home Basic and I found a Laptop for $349 running Vista Home Basic. Is that what you are complaining about? It would be nice if Apple would considered selling a laptop for < $500 so more people could afford them.

I would not buy a stripped down low cost laptop but I think it is nice that others have the choice of getting a computer at such a low cost. Don't you?

The link below compares the 4 main Windows Vista Versions.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx

BenRoethig
Feb 4, 2009, 02:07 PM
Just when they are making progress, they do this. Microsoft, here's an idea, take the ultimate edition, sell it at the home premium price point and get rid of all the other client versions. It's what you're going to end up doing anyway because of pressure and you would have a looked a bit smarter if you had done it right from the start.

cohibadad
Feb 4, 2009, 02:20 PM
So there are 2 versions that will be marketed toward consumers (Leopard / Leopard Server).

Wow. What a bunch of BS. Microsoft intentionally hobbles versions of Windows to induce upgrades. Apple offers Leopard Server which includes additional applications on top of Leopard with simplified client licensing. Leopard Server isn't directed at consumers. To even compare the two approaches is asinine. Microsoft develops functionality then intentionally hobbles them in lesser versions hopefully hobbling them enough to induce an upgrade to a more functional version. They could offer a fully functional version for consumers and a server version for business if they chose to.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 03:16 PM
Wow. What a bunch of BS. Microsoft intentionally hobbles versions of Windows to induce upgrades. Apple offers Leopard Server which includes additional applications on top of Leopard with simplified client licensing. Leopard Server isn't directed at consumers. To even compare the two approaches is asinine. Microsoft develops functionality then intentionally hobbles them in lesser versions hopefully hobbling them enough to induce an upgrade to a more functional version. They could offer a fully functional version for consumers and a server version for business if they chose to.

I explained my error in what I stated earlier in regard to leopard server and consumers. Please read through the thread.

Additionally, it is much easier for them to simplify client licensing because it is subsidized in every mac they sell. Apple sells hardware AND software and they do it at a BIG premium. CALs are practically sold in with every mac, so it is much easier to subsidize the cost using the hardware software sales.

This is not possible with Microsoft since they are ONLY a software company. There is no easy way for to windows to subsidize the costs of CALs.

And again, had you read the thread. There is no "hobbling" going on. there is a HUGE market share that Windows has and it has to hit as many as possible. Some people do not NEED Bitlocking, Direct Access or Branch Caching.

Software companies do this all the time. Adobe does this with their CS4 suite. They sell Web Premium for web developers, design premium for designers, and an ultimate for people who want it all.

Windows is a SOFTWARE company first and only. They gear different versions toward different people and there is nothing wrong with that. Software is their only revenue stream in the OS industry, they make ZERO money off of hardware except for some mice, keyboars, and web cames.

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 04:44 PM
Some arguments beg to be debunked.

Design Standard:

InDesign
Photoshop
Illustrator
Acrobat 9 Pro

Design Premium, adds:

Photoshop Extended
Flash
Dreamweaver
Fireworks

Master Collection, adds:

Contribute
After Effects
Premiere
Soundbooth
OnLoction
Encore

Completely different software packages.

fireb0x
Feb 4, 2009, 05:10 PM
Some arguments beg to be debunked.

Design Standard:

InDesign
Photoshop
Illustrator
Acrobat 9 Pro

Design Premium, adds:

Photoshop Extended
Flash
Dreamweaver
Fireworks

Master Collection, adds:

Contribute
After Effects
Premiere
Soundbooth
OnLoction
Encore

Completely different software packages.

That is JUST the Design branch. What about the Web branch. or the production branch?

Web Standard, Web Premium, Design Standard, Design Premium, Production Premium, Master Collection

Look at it here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/

AppleNewton
Feb 4, 2009, 05:23 PM
Microsoft could have turned things around with Windows 7, not just for the Vista calamity ... but to put a spark into the OS ring.

By having one single edition of its OS, making it completely marketable, instead of wasteful spending and confusing consumers....they could roll all the "6,7,8,infinite..." number of W7 into a single Windows7 OS and single disc. market one product.

And within that one disk can include a specific 32-bit install or 64-bit w/ 32bit install, a specific stripped down "Home Edition" or a "Home Premium" install or a full "Ultimate" install etc etc.


Something like that could allow the PC Vendors more control over their systems and create a more robust line of computer models that are consumer friendly and easy to differentiate.

BUT Microsoft has the history of making things more difficult than they need to be....

Im looking forward to Windows7...i just dislike the over the top pricing and xyz versions......


Unless im just used to the spoils of Apple


--

Either way when you buy a Manufactured computer from Apple or Dell, HP or other Microsoft vendors you pay a premium for the OS aswell, significantly more so apparently for the Windows OS.

IJ Reilly
Feb 4, 2009, 05:25 PM
That is JUST the Design branch. What about the Web branch. or the production branch?

Web Standard, Web Premium, Design Standard, Design Premium, Production Premium, Master Collection

Look at it here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/

Yes, just some examples. The point is, these are different mixes of distinct, freestanding software products sold in bundles. Is an operating system a mix of freestanding software products, or is Microsoft simply trying to make it look like one? They are trying milk as much money as possible out of Windows by crippling the less-expensive versions. They're welcomed to try this strategy if they think it works, but if they manage to confuse and irritate their customers in the process, then they don't stand to get much for their trouble.

I think they are confusing and irritating their customers, which is one reason they are losing market share. This is what happens when you put the bean-counters in charge.

diamond.g
Feb 4, 2009, 06:33 PM
OS X Server is in fact superior in many ways to Windows. Awesome Apple has a Virtualization Hypervisor built in to OS X Server now!?!

I completely disagree. For large installations, maybe so, but what about small businesses with a few dozen employees?

My point is, for $1000, you have an UNLIMITED server license that includes file server, email, calendar, chat, wiki, etc, etc, etc. What does $1000 get you in the M$ world?

Windows Server 2008 Small Business Server is 1089 and it comes with everything you listed (except SQL 2008) with only 5 CALs.

What I find funny is how everyone assumes the Mac way of doing email can scale past a few hundred users per server.

IMO Apple does a good job on the client os, but in server land they are behind.

Trip.Tucker
Feb 4, 2009, 06:49 PM
Guys! I just got an exclusive screen shot of Snow Leopard Starter!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

I'm running that on my iPhone already. :D (http://namedfork.net/iphone/minivmac/)

macbookfan
Feb 5, 2009, 01:28 AM
Hmmm I see a future where osx snow leopard server has exchange hosting and the corporate world just changed...

Rodimus Prime
Feb 5, 2009, 01:42 AM
You Windows apologists here are making me sick. :mad:

"Home Basic won't be widespread in the Western countries." Bulls--t. Every low-priced laptop on the market right now sells with Vista HOME BASIC. Do you truly expect this to change for Windows 7?

"Even Mac OS X has two versions!" Duh! Microsoft has two COMPLETELY SEPARATE VERSIONS of their operating systems for workstations (e.g., Vista/Windows 7) and servers (Server 2003/2008). You cannot use that justification. Moreover, Microsoft sells MULTIPLE VERSIONS of their SERVER software!

Microsoft has apparently gotten so big and fat that even their basic OS without any "bells and whistles" costs more than Mac OS X with the bells and whistles.


Please go read up on what Microsoft has announced about windows 7 before you make your self look like a complete idiot.

Microsoft has already announced for windows 7

Starter and Home basic will ONLY be sold in emerging markets (3rd world countries only. US will not see it)

Enterprise is volume licensing only so again the consumer will never see it.

They will only be marketing heavily Home Premium and Professional. The Professional edition will contain the media edition software so the consumer will no longer have to buy ultimate to get those to key items.

Ultimate will only be sold in limited numbers and not marketed.

So at most you have 3 version advisable to the consumer and only 2 that are marketed.

Really you should read up on it before you make your self an easy target to look like a fool....

tom.
Feb 5, 2009, 05:21 AM
Ultimate will only be sold in limited numbers and not marketed.


Why do this at all then? Why make a product you are not going to market?

And it will still cause confusion as knowledge of it's existence will leak in to the market - I would consider myself pretty savvy when it comes to technology/software/hardware and i haven't got the foggiest what Vista Ultimate does, business does everything you need so why complicate it with another version?

It just doesn't make sense, you can't just fob off a version because it isn't being marketed...

diamond.g
Feb 5, 2009, 06:16 AM
Why do this at all then? Why make a product you are not going to market?

And it will still cause confusion as knowledge of it's existence will leak in to the market - I would consider myself pretty savvy when it comes to technology/software/hardware and i haven't got the foggiest what Vista Ultimate does, business does everything you need so why complicate it with another version?

It just doesn't make sense, you can't just fob off a version because it isn't being marketed...

Vista Business is missing Media Center. Vista Ultimate has everything from all the versions (bitlocker, media center, etc).

Windows 7 Pro is limited to domains and not home groups, while Home Premium is limited to home groups. Ultimate can do either.


What is funny is Microsoft comes out with 1 version and they get screwed by the governments of the world for including stuff and stifing the competition (cause Apple isn't even a blip on the radar in that front :rolleyes:). They come out with multiple versions to make the governments happy (I'm looking at you N versions) and everyone gets upset that there are too many versions.

The day Apple makes OS X available to more than just Macs is the day 1 verision of OS X stops existing.

NT1440
Feb 5, 2009, 06:23 AM
What is funny is Microsoft comes out with 1 version and they get screwed by the governments of the world for including stuff and stifing the competition (cause Apple isn't even a blip on the radar in that front :rolleyes:). They come out with multiple versions to make the governments happy (I'm looking at you N versions) and everyone gets upset that there are too many versions.


Care to explain?

tom.
Feb 5, 2009, 06:31 AM
Vista Business is missing Media Center. Vista Ultimate has everything from all the versions (bitlocker, media center, etc).

Windows 7 Pro is limited to domains and not home groups, while Home Premium is limited to home groups. Ultimate can do either.


What is funny is Microsoft comes out with 1 version and they get screwed by the governments of the world for including stuff and stifing the competition (cause Apple isn't even a blip on the radar in that front :rolleyes:). They come out with multiple versions to make the governments happy (I'm looking at you N versions) and everyone gets upset that there are too many versions.

The day Apple makes OS X available to more than just Macs is the day 1 verision of OS X stops existing.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think any government has complained about Media Center? Is it really enough (with a few other bits and bobs) to warrant a whole seperate version?

The EU has complained about IE shipping with Windows, which I have to disagree with anyway, but even so, is there a version of Windows Vista without IE? I really don't see this as reasoning behind the colossal amount of versions there are.

Why not market Media center as a seperate product if it is such a big deal?

APple don't market OS X ULTIMATE EDITION WITH ILIFE, it is a seperate suite when it comes down to it. If Apple did release OS X openly (not going to happen), I don't believe it would impact on the versioning to such a large extent.

Bevz
Feb 5, 2009, 07:16 AM
Finally, I was wrong about the iTunes things, it doesn't change the fact that Windows can run on damn near anything. Even Win XP runs perfectly on netbooks. You can only run OS X on a mac (except hackint0sh, since I know somebody will call me out on that). By the time you have invested in a mac, the "mac premium" already has payed for your OS 5 times over.

Apple is a hardware/software company that produces solely for itself. Windows is a Software company. Just like there are multiple tiers of MacBook Pros, there are multiple tiers of Windows Software.


The fact that OSX only runs on macs is part of the reason it runs better than windows, if it had to take ANY hardware configuration into consideration it would be as bloated and slow as Windows (IMO).
Microsoft and Apple are both software companies, but they both went down different paths; apple decided to build their own hardware to compliment their software, microsoft went for compatibility with all hardware. Both have value. Microsoft have earned their place in history for doing their part in ensuring there is a PC is most homes (without compatability between hardware vendors this really would not have happened), and apple has earned their place for proving without any shadow of a doubt that any company serious about software should build their own hardware.... ;)

I think in an OpenSource world, microsoft is dying, and will continue to do so... Software has evolved toward more portable file formats that can be accessed on any computer running any OS; microsoft's entire buisness (which revolves around control and monopoly) model cannot survive in this climate.

But, as much as everyone can debate these things from now until the end of time; the main reason i have a mac and not a PC is that i love computers. I love programming, i love technology and Apple/Mac continues a long tradition of people who love computers building software and hardware for others who also love computers. Microsoft are simply NOT coming from that direction; the evolution of Windows proves this so completely.

I downloaded Windows 7 BETA as i did Windows Vista BETA and came to the same conclusions; microsoft still don't love computers; I'll stick with my Mac and OSX.


:D

Rodimus Prime
Feb 5, 2009, 07:29 AM
Care to explain?

The EU required Microsoft to sell copies of windows that did not contain Windows media player.

So then they had both editions on the store shelves over in EU. Personally I think the EU was being stupid for passing that law but what do you expect out of governments things that make since....

I believe there are N versions of Vista as well.

People get so hung in in the "version" count and for get to look into it to see that very few of them are sold.
,
I am waiting until people start screaming about how Retail, OEM, and upgrade editions and saying apple has only one (which is best compared to Upgrade editions when you look at the licensing.)

diamond.g
Feb 5, 2009, 07:49 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think any government has complained about Media Center? Is it really enough (with a few other bits and bobs) to warrant a whole seperate version?

The EU has complained about IE shipping with Windows, which I have to disagree with anyway, but even so, is there a version of Windows Vista without IE? I really don't see this as reasoning behind the colossal amount of versions there are.

Why not market Media center as a seperate product if it is such a big deal?

APple don't market OS X ULTIMATE EDITION WITH ILIFE, it is a seperate suite when it comes down to it. If Apple did release OS X openly (not going to happen), I don't believe it would impact on the versioning to such a large extent.

EU basically complained about Windows Media Player as well. I believe the N editions don't have it installed by default. AFAIK you can uninstall IE, but you can't remove the rendering engine (much in the same way you can uninstall Safari, but not the rendering engine).

I do think MS should have one version of consumer Windows. It would be much easier.

Media Center was a separate product for XP, people complained. So MS added it to Vista.

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2009, 10:37 AM
All of this talk about the EU Commission's requirements is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Microsoft isn't offering a plethora of different versions of Windows to satisfy the EU, they are doing it to satisfy their marketing strategy.

tom.
Feb 5, 2009, 10:48 AM
EU basically complained about Windows Media Player as well. I believe the N editions don't have it installed by default. AFAIK you can uninstall IE, but you can't remove the rendering engine (much in the same way you can uninstall Safari, but not the rendering engine).

I do think MS should have one version of consumer Windows. It would be much easier.

Media Center was a separate product for XP, people complained. So MS added it to Vista.

You are right, people complain about everything. I'm sure it is a tough decision, but they need to simplify the process. Like i said before, extra non-marketed version isn't really a big step up to that target. :(

Draeconis
Feb 5, 2009, 11:04 AM
Go down to your local home center and pick up a flashlight. You know. The one that shines around when windows is looking for things? Yeah. One that looks like that. Now get a box large enough for the flashlight. Put the flashlight in the box. Print out this note and put it in the box:


Ok now seal the box, apply postage (which of course costs more than a copy of Ubuntu but this is for a good cause). Address the package as follows:

Microsoft
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

Now put the package in the mail and hope somebody at M$ opens and reads it before M$ manages to alienate the Windows fanboys they still have.

And yes, I deleted my iso of windows 7 after I saw the sku list for Windows 7 (http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/windows-7-skus-announced-yes-your-worst-nightmare-has-come-to/). In fact, I also deleted some older Ubuntu iso's I had lying around and I got over 5 gig back, including the now gone windows 7 dvd iso. It felt good.

( I posted this elsewhere (http://forum.brighthand.com/showthread.php?t=266026)but it really belongs here too)

In the interests of an unbiased argument, you're pretty far wide of the mark.

The version of OS X is different to OS X Server, and different again to the version running on the iPhone. They share the same basic kernel, but the iPhone is running something totally different, and OS X Server is probably fairly different, but then I've never used it.

That said, I do think the idea of one OS for all the consumer level computers is simple and effective; it's almost too apparent Microsoft want your money, and lots of it.

BongoBanger
Feb 5, 2009, 11:05 AM
Not sure what the issue is here - the vast majority of consumer OEM purchases will have Windows Home Premium equipped and the vast majority of corporate purchases will have Professional (or Enterprise which is kind of the same thing).

Saying that OS X is better because it has one consumer version is nonsensical - Apple have no market penetration in the emerging markets to speak of, nor do they have a presence in the netbook market - nor if we're being honest do they have any meaningful corporate share either.

It's a silly argument made by people who don't understand market segmentation and what their segment will actually have the choice of. No-one else cares.

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2009, 11:14 AM
Not sure what the issue is here - the vast majority of consumer OEM purchases will have Windows Home Premium equipped and the vast majority of corporate purchases will have Professional (or Enterprise which is kind of the same thing).

Saying that OS X is better because it has one consumer version is nonsensical - Apple have no market penetration in the emerging markets to speak of, nor do they have a presence in the netbook market - nor if we're being honest do they have any meaningful corporate share either.

It's a silly argument made by people who don't understand market segmentation and what their segment will actually have the choice of. No-one else cares.

I don't think anyone is arguing that OSX is "better" because Apple sells only one consumer version, only that Apple's marketing approach is not so confusing to consumers. This observation was made as far back as XP, which had only the two versions, and again when Vista was released with many more versions. It's clear that there's no necessity to proliferate versions. Microsoft does this with a view towards maximizing profits. It's not "silly" to point out the downside of this strategy.

BongoBanger
Feb 5, 2009, 11:26 AM
Actually, that's the point - XP has a lot more than two versions but only offered two to mainstream consumers (Home and Pro). Here's the list:

Windows XP Starter
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows XP Enterprise
Windows XP Embedded

The only two that consumers will have ready access for W7 are Home Premium and Professional. Those who buy netbooks may also be offered Starter. This is the same model as XP.

MS dropped the ball by offering all versions of Vista on open retail. This is not the case with W7.

Like I said the only people complaining about this are people who don't understand market segmentation or who have very short memories.

EmperorDarius
Feb 5, 2009, 11:45 AM
And prices will vary between 100-600$. So it's like, get a cheap very limited OS, medium-expensive feature limited OS or very expensive full featured OS.

Would someone smart pay for a cheap feature limited OS? No.
Would someone smart pay for an expensive full featured OS? No.

So once again there are two choices: pay cheaper for less features or pay more for a full featured OS that costs as much as a good computer.

FAIL.

:apple:

O and btw why would anyone buy Ultimate when there aren't even Live applications anymore (the only real preinstalled apps)?

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2009, 11:51 AM
Like I said the only people complaining about this are people who don't understand market segmentation or who have very short memories.

Well, as you've said yourself, Microsoft did offer too many versions of Vista to consumers. If they've corrected that approach, then they have, but I don't actually know where you got the information that these versions are not going to be offered to consumers. As for the "market segmentation" argument, it maybe fully buzzword compliant, but in the end doesn't mean much as a defense of a practice if consumers end up confused.

BongoBanger
Feb 5, 2009, 11:52 AM
And prices will vary between 100-600$. So it's like, get a cheap very limited OS, medium-expensive feature limited OS or very expensive full featured OS.

Would someone smart pay for a cheap feature limited OS? No.
Would someone smart pay for an expensive full featured OS? No.

So once again there are two choices: pay cheaper for less features or pay more for a full featured OS that costs as much as a good computer.

FAIL.:apple:

Sorry but you're talking nonsense. 90% of people who use Windows 7 will have it preinstalled on their PC. The 10% who upgrade will pay for the version they are installing which, in the vast majority of cases at consumer level, will be Home Premium. This will almost certainly be priced around $100-130.

As yet we haven't seen the full matrices for W7, however, Home Premium will almost certainly have every feature that a consumer is going to want. Calling it 'limited' doesn't make sense.

And, of course, Live and all the other aplications can be downloaded and installed - just as they could with any version of Windows. They're not preinstalled to avoid accusations of bloat.

BongoBanger
Feb 5, 2009, 11:59 AM
If they've corrected that approach, then they have, but I don't actually know where you got the information that these versions are not going to be offered to consumers.

From Microsoft.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/feb09/02-03Win7SKU-QA.mspx

I appreciate your point about segmentation being confusing but it's key to the SKU strategy. With a customer base of over 1 billion MS have to cater to a lot of different needs.

Home Premium will be the mainstream choice for consumers and will be the default install on consumer PCs. Starter will appear on some netbooks and Professional will be marketed at businesses.

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2009, 12:34 PM
From Microsoft.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/feb09/02-03Win7SKU-QA.mspx

I appreciate your point about segmentation being confusing but it's key to the SKU strategy. With a customer base of over 1 billion MS have to cater to a lot of different needs.

Home Premium will be the mainstream choice for consumers and will be the default install on consumer PCs. Starter will appear on some netbooks and Professional will be marketed at businesses.

I read this entire press release. Truly boring. ;)

What is says is that they expect two versions to meet most of their customer's needs, not that they won't be offering most of them to customers as options. Only one version (Enterprise) will not be sold retail, apparently. Arguably Starter will be sold only to OEMs, but it will be available worldwide now (a change from Vista), and will show up on computers sold retail to consumers. So that's a distinction without a real difference.

SKU is an inventory method, not a strategy. No matter how many "segments" Microsoft serves, they are hardly compelled to offer less functional versions of Windows to any of them. When you buy a Mac, you get a lot of advanced functionality and features that you may never use. Apple doesn't delete any of them on that account, even though theoretically they could create different price-points for Macs by doing so. Microsoft does this, so it's a real difference in approach. Not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, just deliberate. It's legitimate to question whether it makes much sense.

SPUY767
Feb 5, 2009, 09:29 PM
I happen to agree that it has something to do with your setup. Do you really believe that all of the Windows Servers in use crash as frequently as yours? Spend just a few minutes to think about it.

I have personally run multiple Windows Servers (small business) going back many years (now have Windows Server 2003 and 2008) with almost no downtime. I believe this is the norm for any business that is using a Windows Servers in a Production Environment.

I have to agree. I used to run windows Server as a desktop OS because it's like XP without all the garbage. If there is one things that microsoft has done right, it's server 2003. Most capable server OS out there.

Sesshi
Feb 6, 2009, 01:07 AM
So... cutting through all the completely ignorant BS in this thread, exactly what is Apple's 'wisdom' in simply identifying that their still-limited pool of customers are too non-segmented and sufficiently homogenic in their scope given the features present in their OS not to justify a demarcated OS release?

gbyrne1982
Feb 6, 2009, 02:31 AM
Wow that was a load of BS very long pages, lol, I'm an IT Engineer and have been using Windows and Macs for a while now and in my honest opinion I go with Mac any day, Windows is alright just not for me, as for servers, I've worked with servers and tried MS Server 2003 and 2008, 2003 is alright and In some of the companies I've worked with it had crashed and it's not because people don't manage them correctly, I haven't really tried Leopard Server yet so can't comment on it.

And also who cares how much MS OS cost just download the thing, I pay for Mac Os because it's a decent enough price for something that just works, and another thing people are complaining that just because windows is a software company they have to offer more packages to bring in the income, if they didn't have so many packages to offer and all the money wasted on advertisement and marketing for the different packages they would be able to make the income.. I read somewhere that marketing for Vista cost billions If they only had select few packages then they cut that cost.

Also another note people where mainly buying vista for the wow effect the look, etc so in order to do that they needed to buy one of the more expensive packages, MS should have included it with all of the packages, proof that they want people to buy the more expensive packages to get more money because MS is greedy..

In the end it comes back down to the debate which is better Windows or Mac for me it's clearly Mac but the question is for you to decide.

Cheers

diamond.g
Feb 6, 2009, 07:31 AM
I've worked with servers and tried MS Server 2003 and 2008, 2003 is alright and In some of the companies I've worked with it had crashed and it's not because people don't manage them correctly,

This part, I don't understand. How does the server crash if no one is doing anything to it?

Rodimus Prime
Feb 6, 2009, 07:42 AM
This part, I don't understand. How does the server crash if no one is doing anything to it?

well reading though his post I smell BS on most of it. It seem more like some one trolling. This goes double when you see he joined this month and only has 2 post.

kurosov
Feb 6, 2009, 08:11 AM
proof that they want people to buy the more expensive packages to get more money because MS is greedy..


It's not exactly greed. As a company their goal is to make money, apple are no different.

It's just a combination of bad research into what customers want. This article states they where aware with the problems having so many versions of vista caused. time will tell if they make the same mistake.

Sesshi
Feb 6, 2009, 09:41 AM
That aside, why does everyone who posts in forums "I have xx years experience in IT" "I'm an IT Engineer" etc betray - through their content - the fact that they probably shouldn't have been in the field? I scratch my head over that one, because it's like a 100% cert.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 10:19 AM
So... cutting through all the completely ignorant BS in this thread, exactly what is Apple's 'wisdom' in simply identifying that their still-limited pool of customers are too non-segmented and sufficiently homogenic in their scope given the features present in their OS not to justify a demarcated OS release?

What?

Interpreting what you are trying to say in this convoluted sentence as best I can, I conclude that you are widely missing the point. Of course Apple could, if it so desired, sell a crippled version of OSX for slightly less. We could both easily list various features of OSX that a great majority of Mac users don't even know exist, like FileVault, Time Machine, Screen Sharing -- the list could go on. Apple could enable these features only in a more pricey "pro" version of OSX. They could sell Macs with and without iLife. Any number of variations are perfectly feasible.

Can we even imagine the amount of wailing and moaning that would go up if Apple tried this? How many would complain that Apple was behaving just like Microsoft?

Think on it and get back to me.

diamond.g
Feb 6, 2009, 10:46 AM
What?

Interpreting what you are trying to say in this convoluted sentence as best I can, I conclude that you are widely missing the point. Of course Apple could, if it so desired, sell a crippled version of OSX for slightly less. We could both easily list various features of OSX that a great majority of Mac users don't even know exist, like FileVault, Time Machine, Screen Sharing -- the list could go on. Apple could enable these features only in a more pricey "pro" version of OSX. They could sell Macs with and without iLife. Any number of variations are perfectly feasible.

Can we even imagine the amount of wailing and moaning that would go up if Apple tried this? How many would complain that Apple was behaving just like Microsoft?

Think on it and get back to me.

Honestly, looking at Quicktime vs Quicktime Pro. I am going to say there will be a little bit of whining, but the majority of folks would end up saying that Apple is giving us tremendous value (for however much they charge for the addons). From that point any attempts to compare it to Microsoft would be rebuffed with how awesome OS X is and how inexpensive the upgrades are.

lftrghtparadigm
Feb 6, 2009, 10:57 AM
The idea of a low end, "Netbook" verison of Windows, is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard.

How are people who don't know any better supposed to learn anything? Can you learn anything about OSX from using an iPhone? How pathetic.

Gone are the days of people learning, then progressing. We now simply give them an idiots guide as the OS itself and let them remain idiots for the rest of their days.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 11:00 AM
Honestly, looking at Quicktime vs Quicktime Pro. I am going to say there will be a little bit of whining, but the majority of folks would end up saying that Apple is giving us tremendous value (for however much they charge for the addons). From that point any attempts to compare it to Microsoft would be rebuffed with how awesome OS X is and how inexpensive the upgrades are.

I don't think so. Not only would people in places like this forum complain bitterly and endlessly (which they do already about every slight, real or perceived), the media would be all over Apple like a cheap suit. Let's not kid ourselves -- we all know this is true.

But the key point I'm making here is that nothing stops Apple from treating the Mac market as "segments" by selling crippled versions of OSX, just as Microsoft does with Windows. Nothing but good sense. For some reason, it's defensible when Microsoft does this, but no question Apple would be ripped up and down if they ever tried such a thing. Double standards, anyone?

d21mike
Feb 6, 2009, 11:09 AM
Apple could enable these features only in a more pricey "pro" version of OSX.

I think you missed the point. The current price is $129 (I think). You are saying that they would charge more for the current version (Pro). I think what is being suggested is that Apple sell a less featured version for $79. If they did that then no one would complain about the price. Right? The idea is to be able to get a less expensive Mac.

Also, as you know Windows includes Media Center (DVR Capability) in some of the versions. If Apple decided to add that capability to the MAC OS it will interesting to see if they make it part of the standard OS or make it part of a special system. Example, the AppleTV is running a stripped down version of MAC OS now, Right? I think I have read thae some have installed the full MAC OS on the AppleTV hardware. How come Apple did not just use the full MAC OS on the AppleTV with maybe a different UI? The answer is because the AppleTV does not need all of the features of the full MAC OS.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 11:17 AM
I think you missed the point. The current price is $129 (I think). You are saying that they would charge more for the current version (Pro). I think what is being suggested is that Apple sell a less featured version for $79. If they did that then no one would complain about the price. Right? The idea is to be able to get a less expensive Mac.

Since it's my point I don't think I could have missed it. I am simply saying that Apple could do what Microsoft does. I doubt very much that Apple would be lauded for selling crippled version of the OSX, even for less -- but the point is, there's no technical nor marketing reason why they could not emulate Microsoft's approach.

Tallest Skil
Feb 6, 2009, 11:19 AM
While we're on prices, Gizmodo reports (http://i.gizmodo.com/5148072/windows-7-pricing-starts-at-200-ehh) that Windows 7 will START at $200.

That's Windows 7 Starter, the thing only capable of running three applications, being $199.

That might be a little ludicrous, but I believe it. :D

gbyrne1982
Feb 6, 2009, 11:21 AM
This part, I don't understand. How does the server crash if no one is doing anything to it?

They where looked after but even still sometimes would crash

well reading though his post I smell BS on most of it. It seem more like some one trolling. This goes double when you see he joined this month and only has 2 post.

Just because i joined this month doesn't mean I'm a troll thats just stupid nor does it mean that my post is BS, when i said BS in my post i meant that there where some posts on the thread that where bs..

How did you get your post count up? Where you not a troll at first??

Quillz
Feb 6, 2009, 11:34 AM
All I can say is WOW!

I'm sure glad I got my Mac. There is no way I was gonna buy a Vista machine. Now this windows 7 stuff just turns me off more from MS. If I do have to run windows it will be XP in boot camp on my mac untill I can update the internals on my tower.
Which version of XP? Home, Professional, Media Center, Professional x64, Tablet PC, SP1, SP2 or SP3?

Quillz
Feb 6, 2009, 11:35 AM
While we're on prices, Gizmodo reports (http://i.gizmodo.com/5148072/windows-7-pricing-starts-at-200-ehh) that Windows 7 will START at $200.

That's Windows 7 Starter, the thing only capable of running three applications, being $199.

That might be a little ludicrous, but I believe it. :D
You believe a source that ArsTechnica has stated has no insider information and is thus highly unreliable?

Not to mention those are retail prices. You will never pay that price for an OEM or upgrade copy, which is how the vast majority of consumers get new versions of Windows.

Quillz
Feb 6, 2009, 11:39 AM
And people are continually forgetting that even though Windows 7 will have 5-6 SKUs, only two will be marketed and sold at retail: Home Premium and Professional. Not exactly a difficult choice. No one seemed to have issues with XP's two SKUs back in 2001.

Of course, it's even better this time. Now each SKU is a true subset of the one below it. So, Home Premium is the "standard" edition. It gives you all the features the average home user would ever need. The next step up, Professional, gives you everything in Home Premium but then adds lots of business-oriented features, like Remote Desktop.

Home Premium is the one that will be sold most often at retail and included on all new OEM PCs. Professional is the one that will be used by businesses and sold on business-oriented notebooks, like the Dell Latitude.

Sesshi
Feb 6, 2009, 12:33 PM
What?

Interpreting what you are trying to say in this convoluted sentence as best I can, I conclude that you are widely missing the point. Of course Apple could, if it so desired, sell a crippled version of OSX for slightly less. We could both easily list various features of OSX that a great majority of Mac users don't even know exist, like FileVault, Time Machine, Screen Sharing -- the list could go on. Apple could enable these features only in a more pricey "pro" version of OSX. They could sell Macs with and without iLife. Any number of variations are perfectly feasible.

Can we even imagine the amount of wailing and moaning that would go up if Apple tried this? How many would complain that Apple was behaving just like Microsoft?

Think on it and get back to me.

MS and Apple have different priorities when it comes to bundling functionality with their OS's. Front Row vs Media Center in Home Premium for example - and as you say, some of these remain undiscovered by users. But do you also have any idea how much freaking there would be if Microsoft bundled something as half-assed as Time Machine and FileVault with their business offerings for example?

I think you may be coming from a place where you are not half as familiar with offerings from Microsoft as you are of offerings from Apple. Get back to me when you have rectified that and can actually postulate in an informed manner about both.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 01:11 PM
And people are continually forgetting that even though Windows 7 will have 5-6 SKUs, only two will be marketed and sold at retail: Home Premium and Professional. Not exactly a difficult choice. No one seemed to have issues with XP's two SKUs back in 2001.

Many seem to be really taken by SKUs. I'm sure I don't get the attraction. Anyway, as the press release from Microsoft says, all versions but one of Windows 7 will either be sold retail or to OEMs for preloading. This means that consumers will in fact be faced with the choice of five versions of Windows 7. They may see only two versions when they buy an upgrade, but they'll see all five when they buy a Windows PC, which is how most buyers will encounter Windows 7. So again talking about SKUs is a making a distinction without a real difference.

MS and Apple have different priorities when it comes to bundling functionality with their OS's. Front Row vs Media Center in Home Premium for example - and as you say, some of these remain undiscovered by users. But do you also have any idea how much freaking there would be if Microsoft bundled something as half-assed as Time Machine and FileVault with their business offerings for example?

I think you may be coming from a place where you are not half as familiar with offerings from Microsoft as you are of offerings from Apple. Get back to me when you have rectified that and can actually postulate in an informed manner about both.

This is more insult than response, but never mind. Yes, Apple and Microsoft have different priorities. This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Apple could easily "segment" their market by selling crippled versions of OSX at lower prices, but they elect not to do so, because that only causes confusion about what OSX is.

chagla
Feb 6, 2009, 01:40 PM
- more than half of the people here complaining against multiple windows version will never buy/use windows.
- are people *really* that dense headed that they will have difficulty choosing one from 3 or 4?

I don't want to repeat what many have stated already. enterprise, volume, starter are versions that consumers will never see. so that leaves you with 4 (assuming 7 total).

seriously, if you have difficulty picking one out four, you shouldn't be using a computer!

*LTD*
Feb 6, 2009, 03:09 PM
- more than half of the people here complaining against multiple windows version will never buy/use windows.
- are people *really* that dense headed that they will have difficulty choosing one from 3 or 4?

I don't want to repeat what many have stated already. enterprise, volume, starter are versions that consumers will never see. so that leaves you with 4 (assuming 7 total).

seriously, if you have difficulty picking one out four, you shouldn't be using a computer!

Anyone can pick from 4 SKUs, but that isn't really the point. This whole Windows SKU debacle just underscores the fact that MS isn't in the business of simplifying things for the user. They're in the business of reluctantly responding to users. The irony is that although MS learns from its mistakes (eventually), most of those mistakes should never have been made in the first place. It boils down to carelessness and skewed priorities - priorities in which the experience of the average user doesn't figure very prominently most of the time.

MS is in the business of playing catch-up and constantly trying to fix its mistakes. One wonders what the next foul up will be.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 03:17 PM
Anyone can pick from 4 SKUs, but that isn't really the point. This whole Windows SKU debacle just underscores the fact that MS isn't in the business of simplifying things for the user. They're in the business of reluctantly responding to users. The irony is that although MS learns from its mistakes (eventually), most of those mistakes should never have been made in the first place. It boils down to carelessness and skewed priorities - priorities in which the experience of the average user doesn't figure very prominently most of the time.

MS is in the business of playing catch-up and constantly trying to fix its mistakes. One wonders what the next foul up will be.

Exactly. Somebody gets it. Thank you.

chagla
Feb 6, 2009, 04:04 PM
Anyone can pick from 4 SKUs, but that isn't really the point. This whole Windows SKU debacle just underscores the fact that MS isn't in the business of simplifying things for the user. They're in the business of reluctantly responding to users. The irony is that although MS learns from its mistakes (eventually), most of those mistakes should never have been made in the first place. It boils down to carelessness and skewed priorities - priorities in which the experience of the average user doesn't figure very prominently most of the time.

MS is in the business of playing catch-up and constantly trying to fix its mistakes. One wonders what the next foul up will be.
MS makes most of their profit from businesses/corportations. Obviously they get first priority. They also have to cater a large number of home users. But the needs of two groups are different. That's why there are multiple versions of windows.

I don't really understand how having choices can hurt? When you only have one (like OSX), you don't know what is missing. No OS (windows, linux or mac) can ever cater every group with all their needs. But with different iterations of Windows, you know what is included and excluded.

for example,
home premium - this will probably be installed on computers by default and people who arent' sure what to get. and rightly so because this version has multimedia features that most people and and just fine for everyday use.

business/professional - for office/enterprise/business use that needs network and advanced features without emphasis on multimedia.

ultimate - power users who want all.

so where's the difficulty?

to me, osx is more like windows home-premium version os.

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 04:22 PM
What's the problem with having all the features in one version?

Consider also, that the two, entry-level versions of Windows don't even include the complete UI. Does this seem like a logical choice to offer? Should Apple offer a version of OSX without Aqua? If so, why?

diamond.g
Feb 6, 2009, 04:26 PM
What's the problem with having all the features in one version? To make the shareholders more money it is better to sell many different versions at varying price points

Consider also, that the two, entry-level versions of Windows don't even include the complete UI. Does this seem like a logical choice to offer? Should Apple offer a version of OSX without Aqua? If so, why?

Well those versions are supposed to be for low power systems, and developing countries. Where is Apple's entry in those areas?

IJ Reilly
Feb 6, 2009, 05:28 PM
To make the shareholders more money it is better to sell many different versions at varying price points

Good luck to them, then. Causing customer confusion comes at a price too. Discovering this from their experience with the Vista's versions, Microsoft has made an effort to simply the choices somewhat with Windows 7, so even they have acknowledged that it can be a problem. The question is whether they've fixed that problem. I suspect they haven't, that the choices will still be confusing, and consequently won't be a benefit to their bottom line.

Well those versions are supposed to be for low power systems, and developing countries. Where is Apple's entry in those areas?

Those versions are going to be available to OEMs worldwide now, so we don't know where they are going to show up. Leopard's minimum system requirements is a G4/867. The last time Apple sold one of those was about five years ago. How much lower power do you need to go than a five year old processor?

*LTD*
Feb 6, 2009, 05:36 PM
MS makes most of their profit from businesses/corportations. Obviously they get first priority. They also have to cater a large number of home users. But the needs of two groups are different. That's why there are multiple versions of windows.

I don't really understand how having choices can hurt? When you only have one (like OSX), you don't know what is missing. No OS (windows, linux or mac) can ever cater every group with all their needs. But with different iterations of Windows, you know what is included and excluded.

for example,
home premium - this will probably be installed on computers by default and people who arent' sure what to get. and rightly so because this version has multimedia features that most people and and just fine for everyday use.

business/professional - for office/enterprise/business use that needs network and advanced features without emphasis on multimedia.

ultimate - power users who want all.

so where's the difficulty?

to me, osx is more like windows home-premium version os.

There is one version, OS X. Nothing is missing because everything is already there. There aren't any UFO-ish ultimate extras that you always hear about but never really see. All the extras are included. And for $129 you get insane value (as opposed to $300+.)

Then there's OS X Server (the target market for this is obvious.) That's it. Two versions cover everything. And home users will only see one of them.

Sesshi
Feb 7, 2009, 03:31 AM
This is more insult than response, but never mind. Yes, Apple and Microsoft have different priorities. This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Apple could easily "segment" their market by selling crippled versions of OSX at lower prices, but they elect not to do so, because that only causes confusion about what OSX is.

You seem to interpret every possible dent to your ego and every contrary response as an insult. It is simply from your responses I don't believe you're as qualified to comment in one area in comparison to another. The extrapolation and logic for your conclusions seem to come merely from being far better aware of one side of the equation.

Is all, like.

minicoop503
Feb 7, 2009, 09:42 AM
I find it kind of sad that some of you you guys would decide not to buy an os just because it is too hard to pick which one. I mean seriously, do some research, decide on the version you need, and buy it. It's really not that hard.

IJ Reilly
Feb 7, 2009, 10:42 AM
You seem to interpret every possible dent to your ego and every contrary response as an insult. It is simply from your responses I don't believe you're as qualified to comment in one area in comparison to another. The extrapolation and logic for your conclusions seem to come merely from being far better aware of one side of the equation.

Is all, like.

It's all like, no response at all. Sticking to the substance of what is being discussed -- why is that so difficult?

EmperorDarius
Feb 7, 2009, 11:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtSDlSVDibA

d21mike
Feb 7, 2009, 12:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtSDlSVDibA

AND, Since we only support it running on our hardware, which cost 2 to 3 times more the Windows Hardwarde, we will make much more $$$$.

I believe if I walked into a Best Buy and ask to buy a laptop. And if they could say here is a $600 laptop. If you want Mac OS the cost is $729 and if you want Windows Ultimate the cost is $919.95. I wonder how many people would select the $729 Laptop. The problem is that the cost of the Apple Laptop is closer to $2000 for the same hardware specs.

EmperorDarius
Feb 7, 2009, 12:35 PM
The problem is that the cost of the Apple Laptop is closer to $2000 for the same hardware specs.

Because some people *think* (and I say think to avoid useless discussions with pc fanboys) that OS X is much better than Windows, and that's why they're switching.

ZMacintosh
Feb 7, 2009, 01:57 PM
I just hope this doesnt come to fruition:

http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9124459



:rolleyes:

EmperorDarius
Feb 7, 2009, 02:27 PM
I just hope this doesnt come to fruition:

http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9124459



:rolleyes:

What a retarded business strategy.

IJ Reilly
Feb 7, 2009, 03:14 PM
What a retarded business strategy.

If they could make it work, it would be a brilliant strategy -- users paying for computer services like a utility. In fact it's not at all unlike buying an iPhone: $200 upfront, then $80 a month for as long as you own it. I doubt very much that they could make it work for computers, though.

EmperorDarius
Feb 7, 2009, 03:17 PM
If they could make it work, it would be a brilliant strategy -- users paying for computer services like a utility. In fact it's not at all unlike buying an iPhone: $200 upfront, then $80 a month for as long as you own it. I doubt very much that they could make it work for computers, though.

What about people who want/need to constantly use powerful hardware? That would not be an advantage at all. Better buy once and use as much as you want.

IJ Reilly
Feb 7, 2009, 06:01 PM
What about people who want/need to constantly use powerful hardware? That would not be an advantage at all. Better buy once and use as much as you want.

It would be a tough sell for sure, and there's nothing in this that suggests that Microsoft (even if they implemented such a program) would require it across the board. But I can see why they think subsidizing the initial price of a computer and collecting it back on subscription fees and metered use charges might work. People sign up for that deal with cell phones all the time and never blink.

gbyrne1982
Feb 8, 2009, 12:50 PM
Although the cost of ownership over the life of the computer may be higher than that of a one-time purchase.

I hope this doesn't come about, you buy a machine it yours, You buy a computer the hardware and power inside is now yours you can't buy a computer and then pay another company so you can use it..

What will they come up with next

Draeconis
Feb 8, 2009, 07:46 PM
I guess what makes me pretty sad is the fact that if Microsoft actually decided to make Windows 7 a free upgrade; one version for everyone on Vista, or even just sold it as a single new OS but for a cheap price, they'd do really well.

As this is a Mac related forum I think it's safe to say not many of you have actually used Windows 7, but (and I don't like admitting this but) it's a pretty responsive and stable OS, even for a beta. Vista betas and RC1 were all pretty glitchy and slow, so I think Windows 7 Beta 1 is a real improvement in Microsoft's development process.

That said, I would not use it as a main OS now I've had OS X for the last 6 months. I've used Windows machines since 3.1 and loved fiddling with it to make it work as fast as it could, but OS X has made me realise more often than not what I wanted was a stable OS that worked from the first moment, and in the last 6 months I've not been disappointed once.

M$ have done well with Win7 so far; selling it to a pretty disillusioned market will be their main challenge, and without a cheapish single SKU policy and a strong focus on stability and performance rather than 'Wow', they'll fall flat on their faces.

gbyrne1982
Feb 9, 2009, 05:42 AM
Whenever I had to use windows I'd use XP which at this moment in time the best os from MS but I will admit shoot me down if you will I put Win 7 beta on my imac for a short time, about 2 days, lol.. and found it stable enough to run (I know i didn't put it through it's paces but it ran whatever i put on it fast enough) and it looks alright I think an improvement from Vista for sure but at the moment i think XP will be the choice for most people, but who knows if Win 7 can pull it off..

For me Windows will always play second fiddle to Mac but thats because I've been using Mac so long now and enjoy using it everyday with never really running into any issues, but if asked the same question to MS users they would favor there Os so it's really down to personnel views..

chewietobbacca
Feb 9, 2009, 10:55 AM
I guess what makes me pretty sad is the fact that if Microsoft actually decided to make Windows 7 a free upgrade; one version for everyone on Vista, or even just sold it as a single new OS but for a cheap price, they'd do really well.

As this is a Mac related forum I think it's safe to say not many of you have actually used Windows 7, but (and I don't like admitting this but) it's a pretty responsive and stable OS, even for a beta. Vista betas and RC1 were all pretty glitchy and slow, so I think Windows 7 Beta 1 is a real improvement in Microsoft's development process.

That said, I would not use it as a main OS now I've had OS X for the last 6 months. I've used Windows machines since 3.1 and loved fiddling with it to make it work as fast as it could, but OS X has made me realise more often than not what I wanted was a stable OS that worked from the first moment, and in the last 6 months I've not been disappointed once.

M$ have done well with Win7 so far; selling it to a pretty disillusioned market will be their main challenge, and without a cheapish single SKU policy and a strong focus on stability and performance rather than 'Wow', they'll fall flat on their faces.


As stated by others - MS doesn't have the luxury of making a profit off hardware to go along with Windows. Add in the fact that Windows is demanded in different flavors by different markets (enterprise wants one, being able to slipstream installs is huge for example) around the world, and they can't possibly cater to a single version, much less make upgrades free.

Perhaps to consumers it's a bit confusing, but since the story broke, they've already said that some of those things are simply not true and ceratin things have changed since then, so we'll wait and see. And yes, Win7 is probably the most responsive and stable Windows ive seen in years so it bodes well.