# Windows 7 Line Up Announced... But...



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Don't believe everything you read or see... Of the 7 announced SKU's only 3 apply to the typical user.

Only Home Premium, Business(also known as Professional) and Ultimate will be available for most of us. Business will have an Enterprise version for volume license accounts.

Windows 7 Basic is a limited use Operating system designed to run 3 apps and Home Basic is limited to "emerging markets".

The reality of the situation is that most people will probably run the business edition and if you need access to your work computers or network from home this will be your best choice (or Ultimate of course).

Right now it looks as if Home Premium and Ultimate will have Windows Media Center.

No pricing has been announced though Endgadget is displaying a chart using Vista pricing as a guide. I'd put money on that pricing guidline being off by a considerable amount.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It seems to be an improvement over the tangle of options Vista had, but still I wonder why they can't pare it back down to Home and Business.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Business will have an Enterprise version for volume license accounts.


Oh Boy!!


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Not sure but... my theory:

Business edition has everything in it that Home Premium does with the addition of everything need to operate in a domain environment BUT eliminating Windows Media Center. The Business Enterprise edition is targeted at corporate customers who buy large license quantities at one time. They get some extras such as Software Assurance, Bitlocker, etc, but again no Windows Media Center.

Ultimate has everything in the Enterprise version PLUS Windows Media Center.



Stuart Sweet said:


> It seems to be an improvement over the tangle of options Vista had, but still I wonder why they can't pare it back down to Home and Business.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

It'll be interesting to see the Vista to WIN 7 upgrade pricing and requirements...such as if and how they honor free upgrades if you just purchased and installed Ultimate within "x' days....

Thanks for the continued "enlightenment" on WIN 7....reading it all with great interest.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Looks like Enterprise will have home media center as well.

And there will be XP to Win7 upgrade licenses. Will require complete drive re-format.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Looks like Enterprise will have home media center as well.
> 
> And there will be XP to Win7 upgrade licenses. Will require complete drive re-format.
> 
> ...


Good thing I just got new Image backup software with my 1TB drive...

The change will be less life-threatening of a risk...:eek2::lol:


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Windows 7 will essentially force my company to switch.

We have a "n-1" policy, which means we need to move...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

OK, let me ask this question as if I am a manager who has to watch their budget and not a computer guru:

"What is the justification for upgrading from XP to Windows 7 when XP currently serves our needs? Where are we going to find the money for the training where we are already on a reduced budget? How many perfectly working devices will Windows 7 be incompatible with?" 

And, I work for a organization that has abandoned any Vista rollout in preparation for WIndows 7, and will still require machines on XP.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I stand corrected on Windows Media Center... it will be offered in the Business Editions.

You will be forced eventually to move because you will not be able to replace computers with new installations of XP. If you have proprietary applications the change could be painful... if you are not already trying to bring those applications to Vista level. If you are not bringing those proprietary apps to Vista level then you are going to have a problem.

Since there are very few remaining off the shelf applications that aren't Vista compatible, most will also work with Windows 7. There are few devices that aren't Windows Vista compatible anymore except for really old legacy devices. Contrary to popular belief. most things work with Vista. Our own postings here show that most of these apps are working with 7 and those that aren't have time to make adjustments. A printer that I had that wouldn't function on Windows 7 64 now has a fix and functions fine.

Everytime we change OS, there are always going to be some issues but frankly they generally are overcome. I have 4 clients with Networks of over 50 PC's... all have successfully transitioned to Vista. One of these clients had an on line app they had to access thru IE6, we resolved this by installing Virtual PC with Windows XP inside Vista on a couple of machines. Problem resolved.



Mark Holtz said:


> OK, let me ask this question as if I am a manager who has to watch their budget and not a computer guru:
> 
> "What is the justification for upgrading from XP to Windows 7 when XP currently serves our needs? Where are we going to find the money for the training where we are already on a reduced budget? How many perfectly working devices will Windows 7 be incompatible with?"
> 
> And, I work for a organization that has abandoned any Vista rollout in preparation for WIndows 7, and will still require machines on XP.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> "What is the justification for upgrading from XP to Windows 7 when XP currently serves our needs? Where are we going to find the money for the training where we are already on a reduced budget? How many perfectly working devices will Windows 7 be incompatible with?"


The answer is: hardware.

XP, at least 32-bit XP which is what virtually everyone uses, has several important limits:

- 4 GB RAM max, and it won't actually see it all due to the memory address space needed for the video card and a few other devices.

- 2 TB storage volume sizes, max.

Also, more and more new hardware won't have XP drivers available for new chipsets. You already see this on a few desktops and a lot more laptops. It will only get worse.

The RAM is the biggest issue: modern, multimedia-imbedded apps need more, and you need a 64-bit OS to deal with that. And we've already got 2TB drives on the market. What do you think the hardware landscape is going to look like 2-3 years from now?

IMO, Win7 should really go 64-bit-only, to finally force developers into making 64-bit drivers and codecs. 32-bit OSs simply don't make it anymore.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I think it is funny how everyone gets so up in arms about this. It is not that hard to figure out at all, never was with vista either. All most home users have to worry about is just getting Home Premium.

-Vista Basic was just for computers that could not handle aero and wanted a cheap OS
-Home Premium is what most home users should have, case closed
-Business was for Businesses
-Ultimate was for the geeks and hardcore users that want all the Business and Home features, plus bonus extras.

Now just take out basic, and it is still simple

Home User --> Win 7 Home Premium
Business User --> Win 7 Professional
Geek/Power User --> Win 7 Ultimate

I really fail to see why people get so up in arms. It is how it should be as businesses do not want Media Center bundled in the business OS (professional), but some home users might want the Media Center tools AND business tools (ultimate). The business tools are not worth having on regular home users machines though (home premium). Thus the 3 levels.

If this is o so confusing to you, dont be confused, just get Home Premium as that is the OS for you!


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It seems to be an improvement over the tangle of options Vista had, but still I wonder why they can't pare it back down to Home and Business.


Because it was not just Home and Professional with XP either:

-XP Home Edition
-XP Professional Edition
-XP Media Center Edition
-XP Media Center 2005
-XP Tablet Edition
-XP Corporate Edition

They actually have made it a lot less confusing.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

IIP said:


> The answer is: hardware.
> 
> XP, at least 32-bit XP which is what virtually everyone uses, has several important limits:
> 
> ...


For most applications that regular businesspeople use (Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, web-based applications, accounting programs), 32-bit and 1 GB is more than plenty to get the day-to-day work done. There are companies which lock down the desktops and the versions of IE to keep administration costs down. (Remember, IT is treated as a expense to the company, and something that is controlled tightly). Yes, I deal with the end users of those companies.

Another big stick: When that big company actually releases funds to purchase computers, they may specify that only XP Pro 32-bit be used. Now, Mr. Computer Manufacturer, you can either take a $20,000-$30,000 purchase, and install XP on the laptop purchase, or no sale at all because the company does not accept Vista. Remember, Windows 7 is still "beta" software "for testing purposes". As far as I am concerned as a manager, if it's beta, it's unproven, and therefore doesn't exist. Windows 7 has yet to prove itself in a released version, and has to be tested against ALL of my internal applications prior to being an approved Operating System.

I know that I am talking to people in this room who are very knowledgeable about computers in this forum. I am testing Windows 7 in an unusual configuration myself. But, while one foot is in that world, the other foot is in the business administration world. Often, the needs of one world conflict with the needs of the other world, leading to decisions that leave one scratching their head.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> I stand corrected on Windows Media Center... it will be offered in the Business Editions.


Well that makes sense. 

As I mentioned in another thread, Microsoft should just take a tip from Apple and offer one package. They can offer different install options, if it really matters. The s/w development for the extra features is already bought and paid for, so why not just put it out there for everyone to use. Who knows, maybe those who didn't think they'd ever use WMC might try it, like it and actually decide to buy X-Boxes for use as media extenders.

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

There were two schools of thought on Windows Media Center the last time around and the group that thought it would be useless in the Business environment won out. Turned out they were dead wrong. Apparently, Microsoft caught a lot of flack from IT managers over leaving it out.

I researched this after I read Tom's post and it surprised me. Checked with someone I know at Microsoft and he said Windows 7 would correct the issue.

The other issue with one package fits all approach is the extra baggage for domain access in a Windows Server environment. It would be an unnecessary add on for the home users. Even a Mac requires that a Windows Domain manager install Service for MacIntosh on the Windows Server to allow the Macs to function properly in the domain.



Steve said:


> Well that makes sense.
> 
> As I mentioned in another thread, Microsoft should just take a tip from Apple and offer one package. They can offer different install options, if it really matters. The s/w development for the extra features is already bought and paid for, so why not just put it out there for everyone to use. Who knows, maybe those who didn't think they'd ever use WMC might try it, like it and actually decide to buy X-Boxes for use as media extenders.
> 
> Just my .02. /steve


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> The other issue with one package fits all approach is the extra baggage for domain access in a Windows Server environment. It would be an unnecessary add on for the home users.


Not an issue at all, IMHO, because it doesn't have to be installed by default for home users. Based on how the user answers the set-up wizard, it could remain an optional "Windows Component", like IIS services under XP. /steve


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

Here is an article about the Windows 7 lineup from Yahoo Tech,dated 2/4/09.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/118401


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Steve said:


> Well that makes sense.
> 
> As I mentioned in another thread, Microsoft should just take a tip from Apple and offer one package. They can offer different install options, if it really matters. The s/w development for the extra features is already bought and paid for, so why not just put it out there for everyone to use. Who knows, maybe those who didn't think they'd ever use WMC might try it, like it and actually decide to buy X-Boxes for use as media extenders.
> 
> Just my .02. /steve


I think the reasoning against that in the past was that they can save money on some of the lesser versions by taking out features that sometimes would cost more to put in simply because of royalties and such (MCE used to be in this group for example).


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I think the reasoning against that in the past was that they can save money on some of the lesser versions by taking out features that sometimes would cost more to put in simply because of royalties and such (MCE used to be in this group for example).


Makes sense. Didn't occur to me that it might not be 100% their intellectual property. /steve


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

We won't see a 64 bit only OS for years to come. The cost for companies would be so huge they would find another OS to use. Most companies have tailor made programs and to make them be 64 bit would basically mean they would have to get everything new. They could try to do 32 bit compatability but from an IT standpoint that would a headache every time something had an issue.

Companies don't care what the latest and greatest is. They just want proven, secure, and problem free solutions. Home users are the ones that drive the latest and greatest part. Most business's would be happy to run XP/2003 forever so long as their needs were supported.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> We won't see a 64 bit only OS for years to come. The cost for companies would be so huge they would find another OS to use. Most companies have tailor made programs and to make them be 64 bit would basically mean they would have to get everything new. They could try to do 32 bit compatability but from an IT standpoint that would a headache every time something had an issue.
> 
> Companies don't care what the latest and greatest is. They just want proven, secure, and problem free solutions. Home users are the ones that drive the latest and greatest part. Most business's would be happy to run XP/2003 forever so long as their needs were supported.


You say that now, but even the cheapest computers today are shipping with 3-4 GB of RAM. 2 years from now, you won't be able to buy a computer without 8 GB of RAM, and like it or not, companies have old PCs that die and need replacing all the time.

I worked in corporate IT for 12 years, and while it was common to have 4 generation-old computers in active use, it was also normal that new PCs were purchased every year. Typically the new computers went to people whose job defined them as "power users" (engineers/DBAs, etc.), and the oldest computers going to the folks with the lowest performance needs. But as the pool of old computers is depleted, either due to hardware failures or inability to run current software, then newer computers get shuffled down.

At some point, soon, IT departments are going to find that their new computers have hardware that doesn't have XP drivers and/or exceeds what XP can handle. Reaching the limits of 32-bit computing has been a known problem, but as usual, everyone tries to ignore this kind of problem until they get backed into a corner, and then they act surprised, as if the problem is brand new. Same thing happened with Y2K compatibility, or even with the move from DOS to Windows. Plenty of companies tried to delay the move to Windows, but found that support for older hardware and software was evaporating. And it happened with Win 3.1 > Win95, and again with Win98/2000 > XP.

The other truth is that Microsoft has SLOWLY been getting better at supporting Enterprises. At the last company I worked for, when I started, it was a mix of Win2000 and Novell, and support (for 19,000 employees in 22 locations) was a nightmare. Before I left, we had migrated to Server 2003 and XP, and so much had been integrated and streamlined that, once deployed, ongoing support costs were almost halved, and changes could be implemented quickly across all sites. A few managers were pushing to keep Win2k, to "save money", and I was one of the ones arguing against that. In the end, upgrading was absolutely the right decision, though at first it was expensive and painful as IT had to learn the new system.

The moral of this story is that time marches forward, and that's never more true than with computers. At some point, you either keep up or you die.


----------

