Foo - Why, Microsoft, why? (Six Windows 7 editions)

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/windows-7-skus-announced-yes-your-worst-nightmare-has-come-to/2

We don't need six versions of the same OS. At best, we need two just like XP:

Windows Home (parental controls, DVDs, etc.)
Windows Professional (everything)

If MS *has* to have activation, then three editions:

Home and Pro with standard activation. Then, Pro VLK with -zero- activation. No KMS servers, just zero activation code like XP. Microsoft can yank compromised volume keys in seconds with WGA, so having a dedicated enterprise edition for SA customers is pointless. Pirates will have it cracked in seconds so activation doesn't affect them. For companies, the sledgehammer of the BSA/SIAA will ensure they have their licenses in order, so activation isn't needed in the business/enterprise world.

MS needs to take a look at other OS makers At most they have two production editions. Six editions for the client OS (and likely 3-4 for the server) is annoying:

Apple: OS X, OS X Server
Solaris: OpenSolaris, Solaris, Trusted Solaris
RedHat: RHEL Desktop, RHEL Server
AIX: Used to be AIX for Servers, and AIX for Workstations, only difference was amount of users allowed on at a time. These days, these two editions are merged.
HP-UX: HP-UX, one edition.

Well isn't that just stupid as hell. :mad:

What an alarmist...

There were only 5 versions listed there... ;)

What an alarmist...

There were only 5 versions listed there... ;)

Did you use you fingers to count? Try again.



# Windows 7 Starter (limited to three apps concurrently)
# Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging markets)
# Windows 7 Home Premium (adds Aero, Touch, Media Center)
# Windows 7 Professional (Remote Desktop host, Mobility Center, Presentation mode)
# Windows 7 Enterprise (volume license only, boot from virtual drive, BitLocker)
# Windows 7 Ultimate (limited availability, includes everything)

Windows 7 Starter (limited to three apps concurrently)
Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging markets)
Windows 7 Home Premium (adds Aero, Touch, Media Center)
Windows 7 Professional (Remote Desktop host, Mobility Center, Presentation mode)
Windows 7 Enterprise (volume license only, boot from virtual drive, BitLocker)
Windows 7 Ultimate (limited availability, includes everything)

starter = for netbooks
home basic = for 2nd and 3rd world countries
home premium = you'll see this in stores
pro = you'll see this in stores
enterprise = unavailable in retail, for sys admins
ultimate = enterprise, but retail

out of that you can combine starter and basic, ultimate and enterprise. down to 4.

but oh wait, the article forgets to mention there will be 32bit and 64bit editions. so in reality you have 12 versions.

please kill the 32bit version and combine starter with home basic and enterprise with ultimate.

better yet, rename home basic to traveller's light and home premium to home.

but oh wait, the article forgets to mention there will be 32bit and 64bit editions. so in reality you have 12 versions.

That's right. Gotta make sure it'll run on a 3/486...

BitLocker is only available on the top 2 versions?

I'm glad that Ultimate will only cost me $40.
:D Sooooo nice to be connected.

guess what will be sold in stores? 32bit editions.

I didn't see a single 64bit vista OS being sold in any of the major chain retail stores.
had to go to specialty computer shops to buy the 64bit versions

BitLocker is only available on the top 2 versions?

I'm glad that Ultimate will only cost me $40.
:D Sooooo nice to be connected.
You'll be hookin' me up when the time comes too, buddy! :thumb:

The real problem that I see with all these versions is that MS is opening themselves up for another round of Vista-ish lawsuits.

Will your new computer be Windows 7 "Capable", or Windows 7 "Compatable"? Which version does that mean? Will the average consumer (or sales rep) at Fry's be able to explain the difference?

So they actually *want* me to pirate it... Enterprise will probably be the only one without the media center monstrocity and of course not available for purchase whoop dee doo, and I was going to go out and actually buy this thing when it comes out

So they actually *want* me to pirate it... Enterprise will probably be the only one without the media center monstrocity and of course not available for purchase whoop dee doo, and I was going to go out and actually buy this thing when it comes out

I think they will have a few more versions for the EU that don't have the media stuff (as a result of an EU lawsuit). So you may be in good shape.

Microsoft is unfathomable and they make software that ranges from brilliant to abysmal. Hey, that's just like most other software companies.

Microsoft ought to just kill that new OS now. Kill Vista while they're at it. Run XP, then take all of the time they need to R&D/beta a new OS. Preferably, one that plays nice with the other software that is designed to run with it.

Windows 7 Starter

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

Cheap-o's won't be able to run more then 3 things at a time? :roflmao2::lol::roflmao::lol::roflmao2:

Microsoft needs no help when it comes to dumping on themselves.

-Kurt

Microsoft is unfathomable and they make software that ranges from brilliant to abysmal. Hey, that's just like most other software companies.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think MS is taking the multiple dirty underwear approach. Throw out enough of them and something should stick to the wall.

Yes, I am comparing MS products with the substance on dirty underwear that makes it stick.

Microsoft ought to just kill that new OS now. Kill Vista while they're at it. Run XP, then take all of the time they need to R&D/beta a new OS. Preferably, one that plays nice with the other software that is designed to run with it.

Why stop at XP? Why not just go back to DOS and Win98? Now THERE was an operating system!

Why stop at XP? Why not just go back to DOS and Win98? Now THERE was an operating system!

It depends on your definition of "operating system" ;)

What MS should have done is hold off on Windows 7 and have released an OS that is completely hypervisor based. The tech does exist -- my laptop running Windows Server 2008 is technically a client OS under the Hyper-V code. Microsoft should work on this functionality so the core OS can happily run on Itanium, but with VMs for Win32, amd64, win16, and even a DOS box. Everyone can run their old code, while the underlying OS is kept secure.

Add to this a heuristic based IDS that is updated every week or so similar to how Exchange is updated often with anti spam signatures. This is similar to the once monthly run of the Malicious Software Removal Tool but has a hypervisor level process to catch malware in sub operating systems. The IDS would sit at the hypervisor level, well out of reach of OS level rootkits.

BitLocker should be allowed to be used similar to TrueCrypt without a TPM, just a password needed. Add smart card support on the PBA level might be a good thing as well. The commercial version of PGP does this quite well, MS should look at this as the way to secure machines.

Finally, MS should see about a hardware RAID encryption card standard, similar to ReadyDrive. You plug SATA or SAS drives into the card, the card does the RAID controlling, but it also does a complete AES encryption layer for volumes as well. Key management can be completely transparent, or demanding a password or smart card be presented before the RAID array would be unlocked for use. Because this is all in hardware, the machine itself doesn't need to care at all about the encryption or the key management. An added bonus is the fact that the encryption key can be zapped and a machine reused without any worry about data recovery.

Activation: Perhaps a motherboard hook that stores a certificate. Once a machine is activated, a certificate is stored on some flash on the motherboard. Then, when the box is reinstalled, no re-activation is needed. For companies, machines should come with this already pre-installed and a sticker saying this was done, so people can't look on the top of a tower and copy down the OEM serial.

Finally, Windows 7 should have come with a backup program that has multiple modes. From a set up and forget mode. Apple did this extremely well with Time Machine, where if someone loses everything from their box, they can jam in the OS CD, restore from the TM drive and have a completely working system back. For businesses, add enterprise functionality like encryption, and perhaps other features found in TSM, Legato, Retrospect, and others. (Deduplication, and storing diffs of files comes to mind.)

Buy a mac, you'll be one of us soon...

Buy a mac, you'll be one of us soon...

+1

I've learned to not trust companies that keep changing their products' names. Microsoft has Windows, Windows 95, 98, 2000, then a shift to XP, then Vista, and now it's back to the numbers. That strikes me as a lack of continuity which, to be honest, leads me to believe they're simply trying to find a name that'll sell more than an OS that'll sell.

Buy a mac, you'll be one of us soon...

Already done. I have a Macbook (late 2008 aluminum, 2.4 gHz, illuminated keys) sitting on my KVM switch, whose current function in life is running iTunes and housing my MP3 library.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

Just sayin'...

Apple: OS X, OS X Server
Solaris: OpenSolaris, Solaris, Trusted Solaris
RedHat: RHEL Desktop, RHEL Server
AIX: Used to be AIX for Servers, and AIX for Workstations, only difference was amount of users allowed on at a time. These days, these two editions are merged.
HP-UX: HP-UX, one edition.
Not a very good comparison. Apple only services the higher end consumer market, so OSX is really just "Home Premium." The server edition actually comes in more than one flavor, and frankly both of them are only aimed at smaller outfits. Apple looks at only a small piece of the market, while M$ covers the whole thing.

RH has multiple desktop and server variants which vary significantly in their capabilities. I don't know about the others off the top of my head, but only larger shops tend to run Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX (i.e. they only go for a part of the market) and these systems are associated with particular hardware products.

guess what will be sold in stores? 32bit editions.

I didn't see a single 64bit vista OS being sold in any of the major chain retail stores.
had to go to specialty computer shops to buy the 64bit versions
Unless you need to address big memory -- something the normal home user does not need -- there's not much point to going 64 bit. Since consumer software is written 32 bit, it must be run in an emulator (no advantage to doing that -- just an opportunity for things to go wrong).

I counted roughly 45 Linux distros on Wikipedia... much more than the 6 versions of Windows 7. :)

I may have to go Linux.

I counted roughly 45 Linux distros on Wikipedia...

From the same author?

Didn't think so... this is apples and oranges

You need to consider how many Linux Distros are authoried by a single entity for this comparison to be valid.

That said, I know RedHat has a small pile of them...

Buy a mac, you'll be one of us soon...

I changed to iMac late last year. It's been a good experience but admitedly I haven't DNS much on it due to teconstraints. But the stuff I have done on it has worked much better than my previous vista laptop. Now I'm in the Market for anotherlaptopand fancy one of those netbooks btcant get myself to using windows again and I'm no sure how productive I'll be on Linux. So maybe it'll be a MacBook. Only thng is I really like .net. Suppose I should look at moving tosomethng else

VMWare Fusion on a Macbook works extremely well. VirtualBox is decent too if you desire an open source emulator. OS X has such low latency that the performance hit from the emulator isn't that much. The only problem is if you want to run games on the Macbook... but that is what Boot Camp is for.

One caveat though. Yes, VMWare Fusion can boot a Boot Camp Windows partition, but unless you are using a VLK copy of Windows XP or a VLK Windows Server 2003, the OS will demand a reactivation every time you switch between a direct Boot Camp boot and using VMWare. So, if you do gaming on the laptop, consider a hard disk image and a Boot Camp partition.

Even though this takes up twice the disk space, I like having two XP images on my Macbook. One of which is where I do the usual Windows type work, and all changes are saved. The second image reverts all changes when its closed. This allows me to run some questionable app to test it out, view some web pages that require a bunch of dubious Flash stuff, etc. without running the risk of harming my main OS partitions.

One note about Macbooks. I highly recommend as the first upgrade to the machine, maxing the sucker out. Macs are very finicky on RAM as well, so I'd only go for the "premium" RAM that is intended to work with Macs, and a name brand (Kingston).

Unless you need to address big memory -- something the normal home user does not need -- there's not much point to going 64 bit. Since consumer software is written 32 bit, it must be run in an emulator (no advantage to doing that -- just an opportunity for things to go wrong).

RAM is now readily available in 2GB densities with 4GB+ now becoming standard, even on laptops. heck 3x2GB packs are available too.
the software/OS developers need to get with the hardware.
else we have people complaining that they're not getting what they paid for.

RAM is now readily available in 2GB densities with 4GB+ now becoming standard, even on laptops. heck 3x2GB packs are available too.
the software/OS developers need to get with the hardware.
else we have people complaining that they're not getting what they paid for.
The question is not if they're getting what they paid for, it's whether they're buying what they need in first place.

Putting 4GB in laptops is a marketing gimmick since you can't use all of it in a 32 bit system. In any case, RAM is so dang cheap that we're talking about using all but $10 worth of the memory they paid for. There's nothing new about putting useless lights, cool looking panels, or features on a computer -- adding "cosmetic" memory is the same basic idea.

The main use cases for 64 bit operating systems are people who process really large graphics files or deal with large datasets.

While 64 bit systems can use hardware more efficiently, it's not that much of a gain and is certainly not worth the troubles that can result when some of the 32 bit stuff that people need to use doesn't run properly. IO is the limiting factor, so performance junkies are better off focusing on the real bottlenecks rather than a 64 bit OS unless their needs are outside the norm.

no, it really is about not wanting to or a complete unwillingness to go to 64bit.
OSX? 64bit.
Linux? 64bit.
64bit CPUs? been around since 2003

it's 5, nearly 6, years since x86-64bit has been around, x86 multi-core has been around for ages and where has the software been? still stuck in single thread, 32bit mode. why? lazy ass programmers.

even if the benefits are minimal, it's just putting off the inevitable. they just keep shoving the dust under the carpet.

it's 5, nearly 6, years since x86-64bit has been around, x86 multi-core has been around for ages and where has the software been? still stuck in single thread, 32bit mode. why? lazy ass programmers.Well.. I programmed for Windows for 10-years as part-time job for school and my first career after graduation. I'll confirm that "lazy ass programmers", while a valid component, is only part of the issue. As a non-Microsoft shop, you are bound by some very tight corporate-legal requirements on what you can and can't do. The amount of developer help and tools you get from MS also varies depending upon what kind of software-product you are creating. If it's something that competes against one of their products, you'll get more help from a homeless guy in the park across the street.

I love it when microsoft stunts progress on technology... first it's RISC going the way of the dinosaur, now this.

It's funny. I gave Vista 64 a chance when I got my new computer. I thought to myself "Well, it can't be that bad." I have a history with computers, I'm pretty much advanced-intermediate with Windows (maybe not anymore...Mac's corrupted me). I tried getting a wireless adapter to work with Vista. That didn't work.

I coldn't connect to the fothermucking internet on Vista! It was easier to get my OSX86 machine working than it was to use the original Vista 64 OS that my computer came with.

And now Windows is doing this thing with 7. They're really just digging themselves deeper and deeper, imho.

And now Windows is doing this thing with 7.Hmm. "7". As in "7 Costanza"? Suddenly a lot of things make sense.

Windows 7... it took us 7 tries... and we still haven't gotten it right because we never listen to the end user.

Lots more than 7.

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 95 (4.0)
Windows 98 (4.1)
Windows 98 SE (4.1)
Windows 98 ME (4.9?)
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0, I assume)

(Not even including minor revisions (3.11, 95A/95B, etc))

Windows 7... it took us 7 tries... and we still haven't gotten it right because we never listen to the end user.Unfortunately, when you get to a certain corporate size, progress is slow and is often at conflicts with other interests. I kinda see it as being similar to GM vs. Toyota/BMW in the '70-80s. In many ways, being smaller gives you nimbleness and lets you make changes to your product and corporate processes easier. And it also lights a fire under you *ss because you gotta innovate to survive.

I'm really looking forward to the lumbering auto giants finally running out of bailouts, and succumbing to their mortal wounds. The automobile industry might finally become interesting again.

Thankfully, software is a virtual concept, so there's practically infinite space for anything and everything. So even if Microsoft keeps dicking around and putting out the same old trash, the rest of the industry can innovate and make progress.

I love it when microsoft stunts progress on technology... first it's RISC going the way of the dinosaur, now this.

My gosh. I haven't come across RISC in ages. My first computer was an Acorn with RiscOS. For such an old slow machine it had decent performance and could even handle playing video without to much trouble. It helped that Acorn software tended to be small efficient programs though.

My next computer was/is my current 3 year old iMac (first of the intel duo core model). I am pleased to say I have never owned a PC with Microshaft on it.

There are a lot of things that would progress technology that are stunted.

RISC aside, the Itanium chip should be in everyone's computer with 128 registers for integer, 128 for floating point, etc. Not shells, wrappers, and workarounds for a 1970s chipset. x86 and amd64 instructions should be handled by a hypervisor.

Another thing is the concept of the motherboard. Before PCs, machines used to have what was called a passive backplane. New CPU out? Yank out the CPU card and put in the new one. New bus for cards? Yank out a planar card and put in a new I/O card. Why upgrade a whole machine when only 1-2 components are the bottleneck?

There has been so much innovation that is pretty much stifled by both patents (companies patent stuff, then deny all access for 25 years), or just because of the established base.

In some cases market momentum isn't a bad thing. If the Internet wasn't established as a completely decentralized network, BF would likely be some subforum on CompuServe, AOL, or The Source, and we all would be paying $12.00 an hour to check E-mail and such.

^DEC Alpha should have been the one - awesome chip

(but probably not 'green' enough nowadays)

With almost all computers going to the x86 platform, I have a completely tinfoil hat worry. This is absolutely farfetched, but its just something about having all machines in the world on the same chipset.

Picture a bug in the microcode execution, similar to the F0 0F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F00f) bug. Except, instead of just crashing a machine outright, it allows code to execute as in ring 0, or on CPUs that have hypervisors, ring -1. If some sort of attack took place that allowed something to get the CPU to load some bogus instructions and do this, this would cause an unstoppable mess on a massive scale. This doesn't have to just be an explicit program. Even a Flash app might be able to trigger the bug, if done right. Again, this is pure paranoid theory with no real life examples, but sometimes the way out things can be come reality.

This is why I like different CPU architectures. With everything running on one CPU arch, its like having one species of potato in every farm worldwide... one blight can completely wipe out the world's crop. Having Alpha chips, MIPS chips, POWER chips, PA-RISC, and other CPU architectures means that an attack that brings one platform to its knees won't completely wreck most of the Internet's computing infrastructure.