Three days ago, the internet received reports that Windows 7 would ship in six versions, but that it would only be available at retail in three flavors: Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate (limited in quantity). The bigger news was in how these SKUs would work. All versions of Windows 7 are tiered – whatever features are available in a certain editon are also available in each successive editon.
Let’s take a look at the changes between editions of Windows 7 and Windows Vista as well as the guys who blew this whole non-issue completely out of proportion. We’ll help clear up the air and show Microsoft’s plans for Windows 7 as the understandable gig it always was. Catch the highly critical and immensely interesting read after the jump.
A good example of this is Windows Media Center. Obviously designed for home users, it first appears in the Home Premium SKU. But because Windows 7 SKUs are successive, Windows Media Center appears in all the editons above it (meaning Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate). Most users will likely see only Home Premium on new machines, save for netbooks, which are likely to use Windows 7 Starter. The “Starter” and “Home Basic” editions have effectively flip-flopped from their postions in Windows Vista, and it’s not exactly clear why. There are surely some features in Home Basic I’d like to see on a Netbook, but it appears you’re only likely to see it in developing markets.
Most business (corporate) users will see Windows 7 Professional for the simple fact that it can join a domain. It won’t seem too different, though, since it will include the multimedia features of its lesser brother Home Premium. If you think logically about it, this makes sense, because one of Microsoft’s goals is better connectivity between the office and the home office (as you can see under “Access, access, access!” in this post by Bryant from the beginning of the internet). Sadly, most of the features mentioned in this paragraph may also be the first to be stopped by way of companies’ group policies.
Enterprise hasn’t really changed from Vista, which completely makes sense considering that’s not the place you want to change things. Since Enterprise is a superset of Professional, it imports all the features from Professional Edition. Again, just don’t expect to walk around PPG Industries and expect to see Media Center running.
Ultimate really seems to serve a very small purpose now. Basically, it appeals to the small business who really wants BitLocker, or the techie who wants the same (or just the pride of knowing you have the Greatest Edition of Windows™), and doesn’t have access to Enterprise.
So basically, I’m going to say the same things Microsoft is likely to:
You probably want Home Premium, unless you want remote desktop or domain connectivity, then you want Professional. That really should be good on any computer, including netbooks.
As confusing as the system seems, more “mainstream” media (at least tech-sources), have managed to totally fuddle the story. Maybe not entirely, but enough that it’s not very good. The biggest thing they are doing is referencing back to the whole “Vista Capable” situation, which, while certainly credible, isn’t likely to happen again. Unfortunately, by grabbing headlines like “Windows 7 keeps with 6 editions” and things about the Vista Capable debacle, all they seem to be doing (besides the oh-so-minute factor of spreading inaccurate information) is lining their own pockets while seemingly burning Microsoft through ridiculously misleading bad press. Let’s take a look at some of the issues:
There’s a big branding issue. Sure Windows 7’s “official” branding isn’t out on PressPass or anything, but would it be such a big deal to grab a real Windows logo or an actual screenshot from an actual OS or peg Waggener Edstrom for the proper logos?
Two primary offenders: The Inquirer (to the left), who for some reason, finds it approriate to include a “screenshot”. Only problem: it’s an obvious mockup likely made using Adobe® Photoshop® software you’ve probably seen before, and it’s certainly not a mockup made by Microsoft.
The second offender is Wired (to the right), who uses an incorrect product logo with a tagline that never existed. Its ironic that Wired had branding issues, because I felt overall that Wired’s writeup about the Windows 7 SKUs was actually pretty good.
Over all, PC World’s article doesn’t do a bad job at addressing the issue. Most of the things discussed are indeed true, or at the very least, valid speculation. There are a few small issues though. First, according to Paul Thurrott (who seems to be one of the biggest sources of this story), upgrades from Windows XP and Vista to 7 will be possible, but those who chose the XP->7 path will have to do a clean install. Paul writes:
As for XP users, they can only “upgrade” by performing a clean install of Windows 7–Microsoft will not support an in-place upgrade–but there will be utilities to smooth the process and get data transferred over easily. It’s not as straightforward as the Vista upgrade, but XP users should be able to migrate to Windows 7 on the same hardware without losing any valuable data.
In sections surrounding this paragraph, he goes on to say that Windows Vista users will be able to easily use the upgrade feature to upgrade, in-place, to Windows 7. PC World, on the other hand, said that “all users of XP and Vista” can upgrade, but can only do clean installations. Now if this was so, then what purpose would the Upgrade option in the installer serve? Also, this isn’t the first time we’re seeing users of older version of Windows allowed to “upgrade” with a clean installation. For instance, one can use an “Upgrade” copy of Windows Vista to upgrade to it from Windows 2000, but only clean installs are supported there as well. Windows XP had similar requirements.
One other thing I don’t understand in PC World’s article is under the “secret” (as Paul Thurrott calls it) Home Basic edition description, where Daniel Ionescu says that the version will be “basically the equivalent of Vista’s Media Center edition”. Only thing is, “Vista’s Media Center edition” either doesn’t exist, or is Home Premium. Obviously, Home Premium (on Vista) is equivilant to Home Premium (on 7). As I’ve maintained, Windows 7 Home Basic is more like Windows Vista Starter.
Bonus: For an interesting forethought on 7’s SKUs (this came out last week), check out this interesting perspective from the PC World Business Center.
On to Wired’s story. Over all, I think they clearly did the best job, as they actually wrote a story, and didn’t just reformat an already-made list. It explains things well and offers good reasoning behind this design. Not quite as edgy as PC World’s, but that’s a good thing, in my opinion. Want a brief synopsis of the way the new versioning scheme works? Look no further.
Finally, it comes down to The Inquirer. Troubles begin in the subtitle “Hasn’t learned from Vista“. Well actually, that’s the entire reasoning behind the heirarchy system. Sure there’s still 6 editions, but they’re much more logically organized. Secondly, they don’t seem very confident in Microsoft, saying “…Microsoft will release at least six different versions of Windows 7, whenever it finally hits the streets.” Sure, we don’t have an exact date yet, but that sort of writing is pessimistic forecasting. I also highly doubt Microsoft is “…desperately trying to maintain market share.”
More stabs come in the phrases “The Starter version will include the new Apple OSX lookalike Windows 7 taskbar” (maybe distantly similar, but definitly not a “lookalike”); “the Vista Incapable consumer lawsuit”; “or perhaps it reckons that most technically-adept power users have already moved to Linux” (doubt it)”. Other statements are more or less just from the same other stories (there’s not that much to report here), but twisted in a not necessarily nice way.
Is this system confusing? Only on first glance. Compared to Mac OS X, sure, but there are too many misconceptions which, unfortunately, are being spread in wider circles now. It’s apparent that bloggers are becoming more important, so here’s to Keeping Things Accurate™.
Follow Bryant on Twitter! 
Yeah, all of these sites failed miserably one way or another.
Devin, this is the first post I saw from you in a long time. Glad to see you kickin’.
Let’s face it, the mainstream tech press mentioned here don’t really bother to do research nor do they really understand what they’re writing about. The majority of these writers “used to use Windows” but ended up being coerced into OS X shineyness years ago because they don’t really do any real work beyond making up news, listening to their iPod and google image search (for those great 7 logos!).
Now they use 7 for a grand total of five minutes and call themselves an expert. Few people in IT read these things anymore. Wired is one of the few periodicals which still has any respect left with those who have a clue.
As evidenced here.
Great article Devin. I immediately ripped PC World for their Mac/Linux bias on their boards. I felt they didn’t go far enough to present all the facts and be objective. Getting the facts straight is journalism 101. In my high school journalism class, we were taught that you report the story objectively with no preconcieved notions or bias. You present all sides of the story and you let the reader make up their mind. Unfortunately, for many of the Mac biased press, they want to make up your mind for you.
Unfortunately you’ve got people like Wired, Gizmodo, and the rest who are in the tank for Apple. Thats so unfortunate since this version of Windows so far, is one of the best I’ve used. No BSOD’s, quick restarts in the OS, rare rebooting, and just a major improvement. PC Magazine is just as bad as Wired and Gizmodo, so its no shock to me why their print sales went south so fast that they are just an online site now.
Anyone who has used the superbar can say with certainty that its nothing like the OS-X dock. Infact, the Dock in Mac’s really appeared in OS 9, so even they didn’t get that part right. Its definitely a major tweaking of what Microsoft, Amiga, and others before Apple were doing and is an evolutionary upgrade past what Apple is doing.
This speaks to a larger issue as to why I migrated away from Apple almost 13 years ago. 25 years of Apple and the OS looks almost the same. There has really been no foward interface evolution of the Mac OS. Windows 7 looks nothing like Windows 1, or NT, or 95, and XP. Windows refreshes to stay relevant to the times. This is why I think Mac users are flocking to Windows 7. Microsoft took a “percieved” ugly ducking in Vista and has turned it into a swan.
Hopefully, if Windows 7 RTM is even higher quality than the beta, a whole lot of the Mac biased press are going to have to eat a lot of crow. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Macs running Windows 7 more often than “SnowLeopard”, because its a fresh faced and revolution forward. Change is good but I’d love to see the tech press and Apple change with the times.
The problem for me isn’t that the versions are confusion – it’s that there are multiple versions in the first place. When I buy OSX, I get all that OSX has to offer without having to pay a premium. I don’t need to care about thinking about what I might do with my computer. Whatever I decide to do, whatever situation I might find myself in, I won’t be limited by the software.
I won’t get an intern job at some large corporation and find my OS doesn’t include enterprise functionality. I won’t try to hook my machine up to a TV only to find the lack of a ten-foot media interface.
With Windows, you have to worry about those things, and if you ever find your system lacking, you have to pay through the nose to get that functionality. With OSX, it’s all just there. I don’t have to care about what features my SKU has. It’s part of the ‘it just works’ philosophy. Having switched to the Mac about a year ago, I’m overjoyed that I don’t care about how most of the system works. I don’t get any problems with it, so I don’t need to care. I don’t have to make any decisions based on what I may do at some point in the future, so I don’t have to care as much about what the OS contains. It just lets me get on with using the computer, rather than being its parent.
It’s also very hard to call the press Mac biased. For decades Microsoft has had it easy. Now that people are becoming more aware of what a different OS can do, Microsoft is under pressure. That’s a result of nothing but a truckload of effort on Apple’s part. It’s very hard to change the status quo. Apple has managed to convince millions of people that they can expect more from their computers than what Microsoft is giving (and they have, or people wouldn’t be drawn to the Mac). And really, you’re saying that Apple needs to change with the times? Are you sure about that? It seems to me that Apple, in nearly all areas of business, are more with the times than the monopoly man in Redmond. The real company that needs to change is Microsoft – they need to stop taking sales for granted and give people a reason to buy their product.
Apple has had no sales to take for granted. As the underdog, they’ve had to change minds from the start. Microsoft has had the comfort of selling new editions of Windows almost regardless of what was in them. They have to give people some solid reasons to upgrade. They haven’t been doing it so far, and IMO, Windows 7 isn’t enough. They need to work harder.
Too bad “Boot from VHD” is limited to the Ultimate version – that is one feature I was looking forward to.
@Karl: Let me correct some of that for you before I burst out laughing.
>”When I buy OSX, I get all that OSX has to offer without having to pay a premium. Whatever I decide to do, whatever situation I might find myself in, I won’t be limited by the software.”
Apple hardware costs. Anywhere from a $200-1000 difference in price that you avoid using a PC. That is a premium.
Mac OS X is limited, and also not the only version of itself. Mac OS X Server anyone? (This argument illustrates pettiness.)
>”I won’t get an intern job at some large corporation and find my OS doesn’t include enterprise functionality.”
But Seriously, have you tried doing proper large-scale administration on OS X? For small-medium organizations this is acceptable enough, but there are very few if any large organizations using OS X only to do it; the server component is at least supplemented with something else, like Windows, Linux, or a BSD variant.
Because it doesn’t.
>”With Windows, you have to worry about those things, and if you ever find your system lacking, you have to pay through the nose to get that functionality. With OSX, it’s all just there.”
Cost of Live Essentials: Free
Cost of iLife: $99 (iirc)
Shoot, I’ll do this part again:
>”pay through the nose to get that functionality”
Assume we are ignoring the massive hardware cost premium of OS X, and two friends buy a top of the line computer with an OS in 2001, one OS X, one XP.
Now assume that they keep up with the current OS of the company they initially chose, buying upgrades.
OS X 10.1 (Free upgrade)
OS X 10.2 ($130)
OS X 10.3 ($130)
OS X 10.4 ($130)
OS X 10.5 ($130)
Total, assuming no hardware upgrades: $520
XP SP1 (Free upgrade)
XP SP2 (Free upgrade)
Vista Ultimate Upgrade: ($260)
Total, assuming no hardware upgrades $260
This isn’t comprehensive, and even though I don’t know a long time Mac user (and very, very few PC users) who hasn’t done a hardware upgrade since then, and this list ignores productivity software, sales, the cost differential between hardware, the cost difference is very clear. And the Microsoft OS is still supported, even after eight years.
>”I don’t get any problems with it”
Lots of people don’t have problems with Windows, and conversely, there are a number of people who have problems with OS X.
>”It’s also very hard to call the press Mac biased.”
I don’t even need to refute this one, it is a straight out lie. For every Microsoft will lose article I’ve read, I’ve seen at least three saying Apple will win, or that this is the year of the Linux desktop. None of those things have happened, and Microsoft profits have grown every year for a long time, but the news about Microsoft’s impending doom never ceases.
>”For decades Microsoft has had it easy.”
Wait. So having to oust IBM in the ’80s, create a new an updated OS in the early ’90s while developing in parallel a line of technology you knew was broken transition-ware that caused a bad reputation, then having to deal with antitrust and monopoly proceedings for doing what every other OS vendor does these days (OS X has a browser bundled deeply in the OS, most Linux distros are preinstalled with a browser, Solaris has a browser, etc.) that further crippled public opinion in the late ’90s, followed by a major security scare that delayed an already ailing development (that had to be restarted) of the next OS by years to the point that every announced feature in 2003 was copied by the competition a year before the 2006 release in which the same competitor slammed it with pre-release FUD was decades of ease for Microsoft?
>”It seems to me that Apple, in nearly all areas of business, are more with the times than the monopoly man in Redmond.”
The Zune. Better features, cheaper, Microsoft is not the monopoly, Apple is.
The Xbox 360. Gaming in general, Direct X.
Exchange (Apple licenses this technology from Microsoft.)
Office Software (I’ve seen Apple’s daily news. They try to tout Office on the Mac as an advantage.)
64 bit adoption (Photoshop 64 bit anyone? Dropping the ball in terms of API announcements is not a good way to get adopters from third party vendors.)
Two button mouse, three button mouse, wheel mouse (All Microsoft baby; Apple only recently adopted these Microsoft innovations.)
Touchscreens (Windows has long had touch features; Microsoft Surface APIs in the Surface and soon Windows 7.)
Voice Recognition.
Handwriting recognition (Apple dropped the Newton a long time ago, and hasn’t tried since.)
Dealing with large amounts of hardware that the company never expected.
Keeping up with the times (where was Apple keeping up with the times for nearly a decade when Microsoft had plans for brain dead necessities like true multitasking implemented and road mapped to replacement a full decade before Apple? Oh yeah, getting bankrupted as best it could.)
Backwards compatibility.
Any I forgot?
I think these news articles are referring to Windows 7 Starter Edition, Windows 7 Home Basic Edition, Windows 7 Ultimate Edition, and Windows 7 Enterprise Edition, which is an edition different in name, but not features, by the way.
Yes, Microsoft has said that those won’t be common, but yet they are expected to be common enough to be made.
In regards to The Inquirer, anybody who has an IQ over 70 knows their journalism is a total joke, even more so than Fox News. In regards to PC World using fake logos, it’s likely a “Cover Your Arse” move over directly copying some graphics from a testing copy.
As for the SKU matrix, it does look like it has been cleaned up from the mess of Vista. Although I do think BitLocker should be integrated into Home Premium and Professional, without the need for Ultimate. Security should be a right, not a privilege, but looking at Microsoft’s track record in the security department, it takes them a while to start to realise that.
As for the upgrade matrix, I do not see using the word “upgrade” in regards to a clean install. A clean install is in no way an upgrade, even if they provide utilities to migrate important data over, it will probably leave a lot of cruft from the old OS in tact. If WinXP -> 7 requires this, it’s a bit understandable, however I really don’t want to look into the infrastructure of both OSes to see if it is possible or not.
In regards to Starter Edition, it should be ditched, at least if they have Home Basic going in similar markets, as I could see one of two things happening with starter. Either users in those kind of countries would just use Linux, or they would walk to their local CD shop to pick up Windows 7 Ultimate с трещиной и другими приложениями for 3 USD.
And as for hard core techs going to Linux, well I did, because Vista was that shoddy. I doubt I’ll ever use seven but I do keep XP in a VM, and Microsoft doesn’t break compatibility too much, at least not like Apple does.
@Yert
Pretty much everything you wrote is just plain ignorant.
Saying that having OSX client and server is anything like the Windows SKU divide is just ludicrous. If I was going to count in all the Windows Server SKUs, we’ll be approaching double digits (Microsoft) vs. two (Apple). Besides, nobody is realistically going to get confused with OSX client vs. server.
As for the price premium: Apple is the only manufacturer I know of that gives student discounts. They also offer family packs for their software, and due to the tight hardware control, you can typically use a Mac longer than you can an equivalent Windows PC. A friend of mine still has a powerbook G4 as his primary machine, and it runs Leopard just fine. That’s nearly 10 years of use. Try loading a 10-year old PC with Vista and calling it usable.
Oh, and Live Essentials is nothing like iLife, which is free and bundled on all new Macs FYI.
Also, the OSX 10.0 -> 10.5 upgrade is massive. Far more so than XP to Vista. The difference is that the Mac might be able to take it after ten years. PCs bought in 2001 will probably have difficulties with Vista. Oh, and Microsoft isn’t supporting XP out of choice or a feeling of customer obligation – they have been trying for ages to discontinue XP support, but can’t because not enough people are using Vista. Discontinuing XP support would cause a massive backlash, at a time when Microsoft are already losing market share to Apple.
Also, complaining that there are more pro-Apple articles than pro-Microsoft articles doesn’t prove bias. Microsoft are losing market share, and Apple’s products are extremely popular and Apple customers have a very high satisfaction rate. There is a difference between a consensus and bias. The consensus is that Apple is gaining momentum and Microsoft is losing it.
Microsoft has had it easy thus far. They didn’t oust IBM in the 80s, they used them to create a monopoly. By the time IBM realised that ceding OS control to Microsoft was a bad strategy, Microsoft had already become the de facto standard OS provider. Apple had a part to play in that. The browser wars did create bad publicity for Microsoft, but it was absolutely deserved. They tried to take control of the internet and tie it to Windows. Just ask Netscape. It would be hard to argue that Apple has copied anything from Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft announced features and then Apple has them in a product. Apple doesn’t make a new OS in a day. Those features take years of planning and development. Apple just keep their planned features a closely guarded secret. By the way, Apple’s implementation is often better – just ask Jim Allchin what he thinks of Spotlight.
Zune vs. iPod = Apple gained a monopoly be creating a good product. No underhand dealings or stealing (ever heard of a company called Spyglass? No? Maybe because Microsoft licensed IE from them under a loosely worded agreement and paid them nothing for their efforts. Basically stealing IE). The Zune came in at the same price as the iPod, so it wasn’t cheaper, and wasn’t nearly as good. Unsurprisingly, Apple made a Windows version of the iPod, whereas Microsoft never made the Zune Mac-compatible.
DirectX = Microsoft trying to tie the games industry to Windows. Apple started the computer graphics craze with Quicktime but failed to develop it. Oversight on Apple’s part, but once again Microsoft picks up someone else’s technology and turns it in to a monopoly by using proprietary software.
64-bit = Apple is way ahead of Microsoft in terms of 64-bit adoption. Every Mac you can buy today is 64-bit capable, and with Snow Leopard, the entire OS will be 64-bit with none of the headaches of the Windows x86 to x64 transition. Apple has been helped by their tightly controlled hardware, but if it means better technology with less problems, I’m certainly not complaining. Evidently it is a more sustainable business model.
“Apple is the only manufacturer I know of that gives student discounts”
I call BS. I’ve gotten educational discounts on MS software from my B.S. days right up through my Ph.D.