SuperSite Blog

"No Enterprise."

Buyers only see Enterprise if they buy Software Assurance.  Cutting it would mean people that want/need to run virtual machines would have to pay full OS licenses for each VM.  Enterprise includes 4 licenses for virtual machines.

It also includes SUA, as well as Bitlocker.

People won't see Enterprise as an install offering in the setup anyway, so there is no logical reason for cutting it.

Just so you know Paul, some companies don't want users burning DVD's, using Media Center, playing games, downloading Ultimate Extras, playing around with media files, etc....PLUS, they want to save money on VM licensing or have Unix commandline software.  Ultimate isn't the right OS for them, and Business doesn't have SUA or Bitlocker.

"You should be able to get Home or Pro for $99 and Ultimate for $150."

If you price it that way, people will still complain it's too expensive.

There are two extra things you get with retail copies:  transfer rights, and direct support from Microsoft.

Both will cost you a lot if you buy them in other ways, such as through a Software Assurance contract.

OEM System Builder or Royalty/Direct OEM software includes neither.  That's why it's cheaper.

Of course, the resident trolls will pick up on this and state that there are 23 versions of W7...even though MS hasnb't announced a thing, as Paul points out.

In other news...GO CARDINALS!!!

Take that DRWAM!!!

--tayme

I have to disagree here.  All they need are 3 versions, Home single, Home family and Enterprise.  Anything more and you confuse the market.  A confused customer looks to your competitors.  Make it easy for him to make a choice and the choice be your product.

On a great many occasions I agree with Paul but sometimes you've just gotta pull back the reigns and say "WOAH!"

Why do we need an Ultimate edition of Windows 7?  The ONLY reason I can think especially since M$ confirmed they're dropping Ultimate Extras, is that you would get a multi-user (home) licence for the money.  This is something I and many other tech beta testers are pushing for.

Will it happen..?  I doubt it personally which brings me back to my original question.  Why do we need an Ultimate edition of Windows 7?

mikeaspatrick: Ultimate contains all the features from the home and business editions, for those who want the business features as well as the extra media features and whatnot. it's more than just ultimate extras. Not having that edition puts you in a situation somewhat similar to that of XP: you have media center edition, which has WMC but not domain support, and Pro, which has domain support but not WMC... that being just one example of the types of situations an 'ultimate edition' would avoid.

There ARE a few times when users want to have DVD video burning and playback included, as well as Media Center, but still need to connect to a domain.  That's who Ultimate is suited to.

Plantarian: This week I wrote this article about just this thing www.thelongclimb.com

There is currently no distinction between home and business.  Windows 7 is a mishmash of both done in a frankly ludicrous way.

Most home users don't need business features like domain support.  What they DO need is a family licence pack.

If Microsoft really want to justify the additional features in business, remove them from the home edition and make the home version multi-licence.

There is nothing ultimate about Windows 7 ultimate!

I definately agree they need to reduce the # of versions.  However I think the versions should be Home, Enterprise, and Ulimate.  With the assumption that everything that was in Pro and Enterprise get merged into one.

"With the assumption that everything that was in Pro and Enterprise get merged into one."

It's just not doable regardless of how you look at it.  Enterprise is only offered to SA customers, and small businesses don't often need those capabilities.  Many SMB's don't even buy SA, nor to they ever buy enterprise agreements.  Most get their software with hardware as an OEM bundle, and others will also lease computers with it, making SA less worthwhile (who needs upgrade rights and support when you get new computers in 3 years time anyway?).

Enterprise has its place - in SA only.

Retail & OEM copies should be in Home, Business, and Ultimate.  I agree that Home Basic needs to go.

I'd really hate to see a "Netbook Edition" replace it too.  Netbooks should have the same multimedia capabilities as a desktop or notebook system.  If a system can't run Aero, it won't run Media Center either, so an OEM would never be able to get it WHQL Certified anyway.

I think that Media Center can work on a small display, since the fonts are nice and big, and for upcoming touch-screen ultraportables and higher-end netbooks (think $1000 netbooks instead of the $300-500 ones we see now), Media Center would be very compelling to users.

"There is currently no distinction between home and business.  Windows 7 is a mishmash of both done in a frankly ludicrous way."

Except that MS has not announced what editions will be available, so we can't say one way or the other.

I just hope that if 32-bit Windows 7 can't be killed off entirely, it's at least shuffled off to netbooks, 3rd-world countries, and huge corporate sites.

Pingback from  Links for January 28, 2009 « Steve Mullen’s Blog

"I just hope that if 32-bit Windows 7 can't be killed off entirely, it's at least shuffled off to netbooks"

There are Atom processors that support 64-bit though.

The Z series all have VT, demand-based switching, and Hyperthreading support, but no 64-bit support.  They're designed for MID's, but many SFF netbook makers are using them too.  They have the better GMA 500 in the UC15W chipset.  It supports DX10.1, and is based on a PowerVR core.

The N series are the netbook models.  They give up demand-based switching and VT.

Both the N and Z series support Speedstep.

Then there's the nettop models.  There are two:  the 220 and 330.

Neither have Speedstep, nor VT, nor demand-based switching.

Both DO have Hyperthreading, but the 330 is also dual-core (making Windows see 4 "virtual CPU's").

The N series and nettop models are only paired with the 945 chipset, which doesn't have as good a graphics core as the Z series, since it's a GMA 950.  It's a mostly software-based DX9 core that will run Aero, but just barely.  It's Intel's own design.

The GMA 500 is positioned as a graphics core designed to run "advanced 3D UI's built on DX10 technologies".  That makes it a good option for Windows 7.  It also supports shader model 4, as well as more recent OpenGL versions.  Unfortunately, Intel hasn't written Windows 7 Aero compatible drivers for it yet.  It will easily handle Windows Vista's version of Aero though, but the Vista drivers will not enable Aero in 7, which is a shame.  I would hope (and expect) that Intel gets its act together before 7 ships.  The Z series looks like it's just a better option for netbooks, and 7 will look like the OS of choice, since Linux has shown to be an option that few people stick with (look at the EeePC as an example of that).

BTW:  The whole NVIDIA thing about Ion is based around the N series.  They're a little faster than the Z's, but Intel won't sell them without bundling them with a 945 chipset.  I'd like to see the 9400GS that NVIDIA proposes, working with an Atom, but I'd much rather see it with a 330 dual-core.

In a couple years time, Intel will probably go back to the Atom low-power technology and leverage it in their mainstream chips.  People just don't seem to be ready for the Nehalem architecture.

Also, the 945GSE or whatever it's called, is supposed to be limited to 1GB of RAM natively.  Some companies have BIOS tweaks to get around that, but Intel doesn't support it.

The UC15W supports more than that.  I think the limit is 2GB, but it could be 4.

I kind of wonder though....on a netbook with a Z series Atom with VT and 2GB of RAM....how well would virtual machines run on Windows 7?.....

Wae, which atom processors have 64-bit support?  It is all the ones that have VT, right?

>>What they DO need is a family licence pack.<<

Why don't they offer that?

> I believe that there should only be three Windows 7 SKUs: Home, Professional, and Ultimate.

Totally true. Or at least this is all that home users need to see. I can understand a Starter SKU and and Enterprise SKU that no consumer would ever have to deal with. Starter would just be Home with the three windows limit, while Enterprise should ideally just be Professional with different licensing, if at all. But ideally, they would not exist, especially Enterprise (Professional could replace it).

On costs, lowering the cost for Netbooks for OEMs, lowering retail costs, and a home pack (much like Apple has done, but not like the one that Microsoft offered for a period of time) would be ideal.

Netbooks for OEMs could be a moving target of either low end hardware, or much better, target cost, as a progressive charge that caps out. Best choice? A mix of both that uses the OEM price as a base, and reduces cost based on features considered high end, like a webcam, or a touchscreen. I dunno, my idea here is undeveloped; I'll do a better write-up on my blog later.

Good point, Paul. I agree that there should only be three versions. Of course, the EC will force MS to sell an "N" version without the media player and an "I" version with an alternate browser and an "IN" version that has no media player and has an alternate browser.  Maybe they could further separate the "I" versions depending on the alternate browser, so "IF" if it's Firefox, "IO", if it's Chrome, and so on and so forth...

"Most home users don't need business features like domain support.  What they DO need is a family licence pack."

How many home users actually upgrade their OS?

There will actually be only 3 versions, home, office and IT!

Even my $400 Vista [Acer] laptop supports 64 bit.

Go Steelers!

"which atom processors have 64-bit support?"

Just the nettop ones - the 230 and 330.  They DON'T have VT though, which I find an odd mismatch.

The mobile ones (netbook and MID) are 32-bit only.  Only the Z series have VT.  I hardly see the reasoning for it though.  Z series models are designed for low-power MID's and Intel has been pushing Linux for MID's.  I couldn't see anybody running VM's on a MID though.  On a Windows-based netbook, maybe....but the N series were the ones designed for netbooks....

Honestly, they should just offer a new dual-core SKU with all the features, coupled with the UC15W, or something better (like the Ion chipset from NVIDIA).  The specs are all over the place right now.

Oh, and I already checked....NOBODY is using the 330 in a netbook.  That's a real shame.  The 330 only uses 8W of power, but it multitasks like a champ.

Ok, that's an exaggeration.  They can multitask, but they can't do HD video worth a damn.  I honestly haven't seen any GMA 500 devices first-hand, but the GMA 950 based ones certainly don't.  I should know - I build systems with the D945GCLF2 which ships with the 330 and a GMA 950.  The CPU definitely doesn't compensate for the limitations of the GMA 950.  The nettop CPU's are definitely designed to be NOTHING MORE than a nettop CPU.  Multimedia is not their forte.

In order to make the most out of Vista 2.0, wouldn't it be best to just have one SKU? I mean, surely during installation you could be asked what features you want or need. Having lots of SKUs means more shelf space, but that doesn't mean you sell more. It just confuses the market. Calling one version 'Ultimate' implies that all the other versions are lacklustre and missing something. It looks greedy too, mainly because it is.

It's also kinda ironic that Paul is pointing out the miss-truths in someone's blog, only to make them himself in a the directly previous blog entry.

What happened to professionalism?

"I can understand a Starter SKU and and Enterprise SKU that no consumer would ever have to deal with."

They already do that though.

I stand by my idea:

They only need to get rid of Home Basic.

That leaves 3 to decide on for probably 90% of computer shoppers unless they have an enterprise agreement already.

That's hardly a difficult decision.

If you want to look at complicated software decisions, have you looked at Symantec's Norton antimalware offerings lately?  They have the following:

Norton Antivirus 2009

Norton Antivirus Gaming Edition

Norton Antibot

Norton Internet Security 2009

Norton 360 2.0

Norton 360 2.0 Premium Edition

Norton SystemWorks Standard Edition 12.0

Norton SystemWorks Premier Edition 12.0

(*Both of these versions of Systemworks include antivirus functionality)

McAfee is just about as bad.  They have the following:

McAfee Virusscan Plus 2009

McAfee Internet Security 2009

McAfee Total Protection 2009

McAfee Anti-Theft 2009

Here's the bad thing about them:

They have 3 ways to buy the software.  1 by retail, and 2 online methods.

The retail package gets you the current year with the associated features.  You get malware definition updates within that year.  When you renew, you keep the current year, but only get new definition updates.  You don't get the new year (and features) at all.

The online versions are divided into 2 methods:  download, or online installation.  The download is the same as the retail, in that you don't get any new features, and are not entitled to new upgrades as they roll out.

The online installation does give you the right to get new upgrades as part of your subscription.  Whenever you install, you get the latest engine, definitions, and features immediately.  It installs via an ActiveX control on IE (it might be supported by "plugin" format on other browsers - I have no idea).

The online installation is the only method that is analogous to how Windows Live OneCare works.  It's a subscription too, and new features are downloaded automatically within your subscription (although in the case of OneCare, since it will be discontinued later this year, development has likely stopped on feature additions, but whatever....)

"Even my $400 Vista [Acer] laptop supports 64 bit."

Most netbooks don't.  There's a price you pay for that portability, and it isn't always counted in dollars.

"In order to make the most out of Vista 2.0, wouldn't it be best to just have one SKU?"

And who would pay at least $199 (the approx. price for a System Builder copy of Vista Ultimate) for this mega-SKU when all they need to do is surf and use email?

There are different SKU's for different price points.  Likewise, R&D also costs money too, so anybody saying "Ultimate should be the only SKU and it should cost $100" hasn't got a clue.

"I mean, surely during installation you could be asked what features you want or need."

They already offer that.  The discs have all versions on them (except Enterprise).  The price you pay determines what features you get, and the product keys are associated with that version.  Whatever product key you enter in will determine the actual version that installs on your machine too.

And that is, as they say, "that".

But you've already paid for Vista. This isn't a new OS, it's an updated one. I bet you get charged Vista prices again however.

@boyreinvented - Do we really need to get into the discussion about charging for incremental upgrades? Its been done over and over and supported by Apple and the Apple fans.

--tayme

Pingback from  4sysops -   Windows 7 SKUs and pricing - Hyper-V Live Migration &ndash; Aero Snap &ndash; Offline domain join &ndash; Vista SP2

"But you've already paid for Vista. This isn't a new OS, it's an updated one. I bet you get charged Vista prices again however."

I guess you're right. Everyone who paid for Windows 1 should also get Windows 7 free. After all, these are just updates.

In fact, this should apply to other businesses too. Anyone who paid for the 2008 Audi A4 should've got the 2009 model free, or at least get to exchange their car for a 2009 model. It's not like 2009 models are too different from 2008 models.

But then I'm talking to a 26 year old kid that thinks words like "PWNED" are cool.

@shark47: What I never get is why people don't ignore the trolls in here. I wish Thurrott would consider a comment mod system that hides crap comments, and marks as spam people who make multiple accounts, advertise other sites excessively, or are extremely off-topic (this one would be the hardest, as off topic chatter in the posts are not always bad).

But meh, we could just ignore them.

Lets wait and see. I would not put it past Microsoft to stuff things up. They are really, really good at it.

"If Microsoft takes these important steps, they’ll prove that the simplicity initiatives in Windows 7 aren’t just window dressing, and that the company is serious about making Windows simpler for users across the board. Go for it, guys. We’re waiting."

As if these simple steps will cure an OS plagued with security problems. And yes, it's just Windows window dressing with this point release of Windows 6.1.

"As if these simple steps will cure an OS plagued with security problems."

As if slapping an Apple logo on anything did the same too.

I am continually amused at how people seem to have their own definitions of what makes a "new OS".

I'd be curious to see someone compile a list of 'new features' in Windows 7 using Apple's definition.

Actually Tom's hardware posted a screenshot with Win 7 installer showing 'The five versions of Windows 7 are as follows: Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate'. Although they have changed, removing two, I don't think it's fair to call these post 'fantasy' as they are true, but just outdated. Besides, if five versions of Win 7 are needed because of different grades of hardware, then we need five versions. Would you rather have a law suit when a netbook doesn't work with Ultimate? I'd bet not. Let them post. MS needs the advertising.

"I'd be curious to see someone compile a list of 'new features' in Windows 7 using Apple's definition."

Where Apple would have 300 new features, Windows 7 would have 9600.

(Free beer for anybody that understands that)

"Besides, if five versions of Win 7 are needed because of different grades of hardware, then we need five versions."

Starter is for developing nations.  Although you are correct that it only warrants low-end hardware, and it IS included on the disc, nobody in North America (dunno about Mexico though) could legally buy it for sale here.  I don't know why they bother including the Starter bits in NA copies, but I imagine it's just for testing purposes (and to appease reviewers like Paul).

@waethorn: "Where Apple would have 300 new features, Windows 7 would have 9600."

And 9599 of those are security patches.

touché robertsjoe

DRWAM: I have doubts that hardware requirements are much of an issue for the different versions. I don't believe there is going to be much difference in resource usage between homepremium/business/enterprise/ultimate, considering that resource usage comes with running applications and services; hard disk space would be more of a deciding factor whenever you weren't actually using the extra features. home basic may run better on low-end hardware thanks to its crippled DWM, however, but only marginally, i presume. you could get roughly the same effect in other versions by disabling aero. different versions aren't about hardware subsets; they're about feature subsets.

What about a replacement for Windows XP embedded?  I know that it's not a popular OS, but many POS systems still use it.

"And 9599 of those are security patches."

Yeah, sure. Apple never has security patches. Oh wait ... you don't install them, right? Who needs security patches when you have OS X?

"touché robertsjoe "

Yes, doc, we're all Microsoft fanboys for not encouraging him!

robertsjoe: you should've picked a smaller number, as I can see one glaring feature staring at me from the bottom of my screen right now, and i can think of plenty more without even having to look. If you're going to troll, you should make it more believeable. saying that there's only 1 new feature is certainly trollworthy, but when that can be very easily disputed just by looking at a simple screenshot then you lose credibility even as a troll. using a number like, say, 9582 would still make for a good troll while at the same time making it sound more believeable for the more ignorant/naive of the bunch.

planetarian, I see your point. Win 7 netbooks should get very popular, since they will be very portable and have much more functionality than that a Linux. My buddy just told me yesterday, that his daughter did not want to risk damaging a MacBook Pro a college, so she  bought a Linux netbook at Target, that she carries around all day. She finds it very useful. But just think if it had Win 7 installed. She have even more usefulness. Hopefully she will be able to upgrade it when available.

i.gizmodo.com/.../why-microsoft-should-give-windows-7-away

I agree with buchanan here. Offer a Windows 7 upgrade license to Vista users for $49 - great PR.  It might reaffirm the notion that Vista was bad, but who cares? It'll help the Windows brand.

I don't see the purpose of Home Premium. Why not have just Business and Ultimate? Why restrict home users? Businesses I can understand not wanting all the media center stuff, but everyday users may like things like Previous Versions, Bitlocker etc. but 90% of the people who only get Windows when they buy a new PC will never get to use those features because they are more than likely going to get Home Premium, and if you're going to make me have to pay over $200 to upgrade my OS when I just bought the new computer, then forget it!

Sharkster, that low price sorta implies it as an update. I like the price but would not want 7 seen that way. Lets face it, 7 must be much more than an update if the minimum hardware requirement is much lower. How about $65? Just kidding. I don't think that MS should admit that the current version of Vista has anything wrong with it as it would make them look worse, [trying to sell a lame OS to make money].

Well, Vista had problems and in the end, Microsoft has to accept responsibility for them. They might face ridicule from some quarters, but on the whole, I think giving 7 cheap to Vista users would give earn them the kind of goodwill that the free Zune firmware updates did.

shark: Or they'd be seen as foolhardy, either way.

As awesome as it is that they release software updates for all Zunes for free, your PC does quite a bit more than a Zune is capable of doing, and Windows/Zune were/are in completely different positions relative to the competition as well. Such a sign of good will surely helped the Zune, and I'm certain we'd all love for them to do the same with win7.

Zune, however, is expendable if it fails financially... Windows is not. Given that Windows is critical to MS' financial success, I have a feeling they'd be much more hesitant to make such a move that might potentially have a negative effect on their profitability.

i dont know what "ultimate" price the consumers have to pay if they opt in for windows 7 ultimate..wasnt xp doing fine with only two versions may be we can have only two of 'em

Wae, I got it, but apparently robertsjoe didn't.  He isn't old enough, so I won't hold it against him.

This is Microsoft we are talking about right.....???

As in......

SQL Server 2008 Express

SQL Server 2008 Express Tools

SQL Server 2008 Express Advanced

SQL Server 2008 Workgroup

SQL Server 2008 Standard

SQL Server 2008 Developer

SQL Server 2008 Enterprise

Yeah I thought so.  AS the Doc said this was a screen shot not something they are dreaming up.  Paul is just jealous Tom gets more traffic.

So what happened to 110?

 --John (who still has his acoustic coupler downstairs--but no phones shaped right)

Does anyone have any idea how I can get my Firefox bookmarks synced with the Live Skydrive Favorites?

I have been using the Windows Live Toolbar and IE8 to do this, but now I want to use Firefox!

Paul,

You are part right and part wrong here. I have a better solution to the SKU debacle. Instead of Microsoft sending multiple SKU's to the stores, which requires more packaging and printing cost, the solution would be one version that contains every version of Windows 7.

Your installation process could be changed to a menu that says this.

"Select the Version of Windows 7, you wish to install."

"Home, Professional, Ultimate."

A brief explanation of each version would be by each version.

All the Product Keys can be used for any version, including the ability to go down to a less featured set like Home or up from the Home Version up to Ultimate. This was an idea they were floating originally with Vista but it never got done. I think this was one of the big issues with Vista that help make it so unpopular.

Second, each version of Windows 7 should have have 2 licencees. Almost everyone I know has 2 desktops or a desktop along with a notebook. I'm sure that a desktop/netbook will be the future thing. So instead of one licence which is very restrictive, go ahead and meet the audience with 2 versions. I also believe a 4 licencees family pack is definitely in order.

This harkens back to Paul's argument of Easy vs. Simple. Easy is limiting the SKU's. Including the 3 sku's in a 2 pack licence arrangement that allows for flexability, thats simple. You go up or down as you need or don't need features.

It would also be great if MIcrosoft allowed users to have access to a downloadable ISO, just incase your DVD is damaged, lost, or destroyed.

I really hope that Microsoft doesn't blow it again with the multiple SKU's again. That would just be annoying.

There was a necessity for Home Basic when Vista was RTMed. Home Premium wouldn't run on most low end hardware. I doubt that they will release Home Basic again, especially after the class action lawsuit. Like Paul says, it's just a screenshot. Screenshots can be changed. Some people just need an excuse to bash Microsoft. Others like robertsjoe and gang don't need any.

"@shark47: What I never get is why people don't ignore the trolls in here. "

@yert: It's hard when they literally hijack the thread. If it's not robertsjoe, it's someone else like fivepoint or boy....

Oh, in other news:

GO CARDINALS!!!!

@planetarian,

You're probably right.

That said, I don't think Microsoft would lose much by charging less for upgrade versions. I think it's the OEMs that would mind.

Shark is right about this,

"I agree with buchanan here. Offer a Windows 7 upgrade license to Vista users for $49 - great PR.  It might reaffirm the notion that Vista was bad, but who cares? It'll help the Windows brand."

For several reasons. All that really does is give consumers an upgrade price that is likely comparable to the volume price they're already giving Dell, HP, et al.

Yah, it might mean a revenue hit, but the offer could be time limited and that would spur initial sales, which are important for perception purposes.

It would do a lot to restore the brand, and make the brand again "Windows", not the horribly perceived (whether fairly or not) Vista tag.

It would be a nice differentiator from Apple. They could even put it in ads that way. I wouldn't mind a meaningful competitive gesture from Microsoft. Hell, if I could get it for $49 I'd probably buy  a copy to run under VMWare just for compatibility purposes.

"AS the Doc said this was a screen shot not something they are dreaming up."

But since the choices are the exact same as they are on Vista, we can't make any assumptions since this is still a beta and we haven't heard any official word from MS.  Let's wait till they announce that, then we can complain all we want.

"That said, I don't think Microsoft would lose much by charging less for upgrade versions. I think it's the OEMs that would mind."

It's easy to assume that Microsoft can just charge a very small amount for an upgrade.  Here are the reasons why it isn't easy at all:

Royalty/Direct OEM's get Windows license at a discount over, say, System Builders.  It's not just about volume either.  Direct OEM's only get the licenses to include Windows with systems.  They have a recurring contract with a predicted MOQ (minimum order quantity).  That MOQ will start in the thousands.  PER MONTH.  They also DON'T get anything tangible from Microsoft aside from the licenses and a gold master copy of the software.  The OEM has to pay out of their own pocket to produce COA's and documentation based on Microsoft's designs.  They also have development costs to produce system recovery methods, such as creating or purchasing third-party recovery software, or for manufacturing installation media (has to be done professionally, not just burned).  It's not a free (or cheap) ride for OEM's whatsoever.  OEM's just generally want control over how the software is packaged, and don't want to pay Microsoft for services that aren't warranted for them.

System Builders don't get as much choice or control but they get generic software.  Smaller builders (like me) will have less resources at their disposal, so they need to have the basics done for them.  Microsoft provides, through distribution, generic install media, COA's, and documentation.  The cost of producing that is included in the cost of the software package.  It reduces headaches for the smaller system builder.  There are still some policies in the SBLA (System Builder License Agreement) that need to be followed, but it's pretty standard stuff.

Who is to support these upgrades?  OEM software (all types) is not supported by Microsoft - it's supported by the OEM (unless a customer buys SA as an extra, but that's a whole other story).  Retail software includes support though.  That's why it's more expensive (the only other thing it includes is transfer rights).  If you've ever looked at Microsoft's PPI support, you know why retail versions cost so much.  So who absorbs that support cost?  Also, if they're offered as upgrades, wouldn't that mean that the OEM would have to take the responsibility of testing compatibility of preloaded software as well as provide hardware drivers for hardware from their Vista images to make sure it works on 7?  How do they recoup that cost if Microsoft sells it directly?  How would Microsoft recoup support costs if they offer to provide support?  If OEM's have to support it, they'd have to sell it.  That means that they'd have to front more money for their own support and dev costs on producing media, docs, COA's, etc., all over again.  How can they manage to do that on such low revenues?  Provide it at a loss?

"I believe that there should only be three Windows 7 SKUs: Home, Professional, and Ultimate. That’s it."

If Microsoft don't come with a netbook edition then they will have to implement full support of flash drive in all version of Windows.This could enable the upcoming of PC with both flash drive,for the system, and hard drive for mass storage.

" Not two Home versions. No Enterprise. No Starter. "

Agree both Home Basic and Starter would be useless.

I live in a third world country and i haven't seen yet a single person using Starter or willing to use it.

I think that people here would rather use Linux than use Starter editions.

Enterprise edition is redundant with Professional, so...

"I also feel that Windows needs to be less expensive, especially at retail, where no one is buying the product anyway. You should be able to get Home or Pro for $99 and Ultimate for $150. Anything higher is ludicrous."

I agree but Microsoft should offer a special OEM licensing for netbooks,let say less than $50 per license for OEM.

Otherwise Windows 7 based netbooks could prove to be too expensive compared to the upcoming $200 Linux based ARM netbooks.

"Enterprise edition is redundant with Professional, so..."

Nobody seems to understand that.  Saying that is like saying Home Basic and Home Premium are the same.  If you wanted the features in Home Premium, would you take Home Basic instead?

"I agree but Microsoft should offer a special OEM licensing for netbooks,let say less than $50 per license for OEM."

OEM's pay about that amount already anyway.  System Builders pay more (see my previous comment).

If Microsoft were to lower the price to anything under $100 dollars, the competition would be screaming that it is an unfair advantage...guaranteed! If they charge more than $129, they will be shouting, "Look how much MS charges for Windows"...so, it seems that the sweet spot is $100-$129...and of course, if they price it in that range, they will be accused of copying Apple on price point, since they are already copying them by releasing an incremental upgrade as a new version and charging for it.

--tayme

"Nobody seems to understand that.  Saying that is like saying Home Basic and Home Premium are the same."

Not really ,as the Home Basic was quite limited compared to Home Premium.Business and Enterprise are almost identical features wise thus they could be merged in one edition which will have different licensing.

If Enterprise and Business have significant enough differences then the need of 2 editions could be justified.

However with different licensing there is no need for 2 editions.

"OEM's pay about that amount already anyway.  System Builders pay more (see my previous comment)."

Then the Netbook licensing should enable licenses at $30.

The important thing is not to increase too much the price of Windows 7 based netbooks even if several would have the edge other Linux based netbooks,for exampel the netbooks with multitouch screen. However at $200,Linux based ARM powered netbooks will be incredibly attractive and more advanced capabilities would not be enough to justify a too important price gap between them and Windows 7 based netbooks.

I like timiteh and subzerohitman's ideas. the netbook version  seems like a winner, as well as support for a bootable flash drive. The abilty to install on 2 or 3 computers could be a good selling point as well, similar to student versions of Office. More is better so we would not need to pay for another license for the other family computers.

I guess we are talking upgrades to existing systems in that respect. Personally, I am very reluctant to upgrade as are many friends, since everything works tosuit our needs. I have no stats to tell me how many geeks actually want the latest and greatest, but XP suited many, so they probably did not feel the need to spend more on the latest OS.

I was trying to figure out why Paul has the image Chinese Fighting Fish on his banner.

Then I realized he was confusing the more common name for the fish ("betta", pronounced "bet-uh") with "beta".

I bet he pronounces "chic" as "chick" too.

"Business and Enterprise are almost identical features wise thus they could be merged in one edition which will have different licensing.

If Enterprise and Business have significant enough differences then the need of 2 editions could be justified."

I already explained this.

Bitlocker, SUA, MUI, and the 4 VM client licenses which are worth quite a bit by themself.

You get Enterprise as another Software Assurance benefit only.  You can't really say it's a whole new edition, as Software Assurance would be applied to your already-present Windows Vista Business licensing.  If they called it "Windows Vista Software Assurance Feature Pack" instead, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

tayme, you are correct in regards to the pricing.  There is no price that they can offer that will appease everyone.

@"lotsamystuff" - Obviously, you have not installed the W7 beta...the betta is the default wallpaper upon installation...probably because most people incorrectly prounounce the fish, betta, the same as the Greek letter, beta.

Or, it was just a jab at Paul...

--tayme

"@"lotsamystuff" - Obviously, you have not installed the W7 beta"

Nope. I'm still using XP Professional, and I'm not about to mess around with the beta. I'll probably buy a new system when Vista 1.1 (Paul's words, not mine) is finalized.

"most people incorrectly prounounce the fish, betta, the same as the Greek letter, beta."

Yes, they do. Why would anyone encourage this?

"Or, it was just a jab at Paul..."

Well, Duh. ;-)

"most people incorrectly prounounce the fish, betta, the same as the Greek letter, beta."

Actually, in a real Greek accent, the word is pronounced more like "bet-uh", not "bay-tuh" as is the North American English patois.

It's like how Brit's say "Lara" as "Laura", and "Laura" as "LO-ra".

Waethorn, the Brits do not pronounce Lara and Laura as you described.

"the Brits do not pronounce Lara and Laura as you described."

Ask anyone with a Westminster accent, and they'll tell you you're wrong, but in fewer words.

Ya know, there are some good ideas from this peanut gallery indicating knowledge is readily available. So how in the frak can executives of the big car makers, getting paid hundreds of thousands, to millions of dollars, come up with such bad ideas? They would be consumers as well and should know the needs of the 'people'. And we just gave those bozos more money to piss away again. As Paul states, where's the outrage? And where's common sense?

"As Paul states, where's the outrage? And where's common sense?"

I thought Obama was supposed to be about change....

Nothing different about frivolous spending in the new gub'ment.

They should've sold and outsourced all the mortgage and insurance business to China.  Done.  Problem solved.  Nobody in debt except mortgage and insurance workers (and their overpayed executive scumbag bosses).  Big loss there....  :P

Now if only they could take on lawyers too....