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™.