Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance

[mad_onion]

There's bothing like a Macbook Home and Business edition, there's no difference software wise between the two and the both are perfectly well suited to work at home or in a business so I can't see how your analogy works with this.

sigh, i think it's a very simple concept to grasp, you really don't need a degree in business to understand what brandon is explaining.

it's not about the features in the individual versions it's about how much the business makes from selling the product. apple have two different SKUs in the form Macbook and Macbook Pro. they make more money from the pro than they do from the other. the software has nothing to do with it in the case of apple because they make their money from hardware.

microsoft on the other hand makes it's money from software and as such has to have different SKUs at different price points for different consumers. just like apple, and a lot of businesses for that matter.

[Preppy Veteran]

@ zachdms. Do you work for Microsoft?

Yes, I'm a dev over there. I speak for myself only.

I understand what your saying zachdms, you say that it costs to change SKU's (perhaps costs a lot).

If you're interpreting "cost" as solely a fiscal term you're losing the value of the word. I believe someone actually wrote a nice article on SKU design and the associated costs. I am far too lazy to look that up for you. The plans that appear to be the best plans are the ones that get followed. If you have contrary ideas, you would likely benefit from stepping back outside of your personal vision and understanding the bigger picture. There's a lot of good ideas here, but you've got to pivot your company around the best ones. The cool thing about this day and age is that you're going to be challenged in your decisions, so you will certainly have the opportunity to rethink them and again attempt to make the best possible choices.

So why did Microsoft change the sensible Windows XP SKU's to the schizophrenic confused mess that is Vista SKU'?

You and buu are both (probably accidentally) ignoring XP SKUs: whither the Media Center and Table PC Edition in your version of XP SKU lands? That's four versions of the XP SKU, and that ignores the various iterations of Media Center which do require an OS upgrade to move between. (There's good reason to pay attention to them, but since this whole area of concern is generally resolved in Vista, it's probably not of forward-looking concern. But XP has some pretty big problems in this area, so if you're going to hold up XP as a shining example, you *have* to acknowledge where the XP model broke down.)

Componization needs to be accelerated.

What componentization? The system currently already offered by Windows Embedded? Or the conversion to a much better structured componentized architecture as happened between XP to Vista?

Setup needs to be granular for those who want the option and performance needs to take priority.

"Needs" here is a value judgement. You do understand that there's a massive trade-off through your granularity needs - which are already covered by Windows Embedded? You do understand that smart people looked at the costs associated with your definition of "granular" versus the benefits associated with your definition of "granular" and made a decision, right?

I'm entirely unaware that people are 100% satisfied with any version of Windows ever, and I'm pretty certain that your massively distracting hyper-granularity project would steal a metric ton of resources away from improving Windows in order to offer you very specific feature that serves You and some small N percent of users well.

Also, I don't accept the argument 'too many SKU's too much testing'. Apple can do it. Yeah? So can Microsoft.

So assuming we have 'N' major SKUs, you would need to minimally test all X components involved 'N' times. Therefore if 'N' is not a low number, you've just killed your test team. Does this simply example clearly enough demonstrate to you why 'N' must be a low number?

We're really just repeating the same basic rudimentary concepts so far, so I can't imagine this conversation is of much value to anyone. Don't get me wrong, I love SKU design and have given classes on the subject and could talk about it internally all day. But I also can kind of tell when we're rat-holing. If the idea is that "One SKU is Good" or "An Infinite Variety of SKUs is Important", OK, those are well known and interesting ideas that both have a lot of value to learn from. Let's take those two concepts in stride and hopefully expand our conversational horizon. If we can't do that, I respectfully abandon this conversation. :)

[giga Veteran]

It's not silly. As I said, the only people who can buy the boxed version of 10.5 are people who already gave Apple a huge amount of money for at least one machine. For Apple, upgrade purchases are just gravy. Their business model doesn't involve selling those boxed software products, the revenue from it is tiny in comparison to their hardware sales.

No, the difference covers the entire package. They don't sell laptops with Mac OS Home Edition and Mac OS Business Edition, they sell the Macbook Home Edition and the Macbook Business Edition. There is no point in having different software SKUs since they don't sell software. They can't get an OEM to pay more for Mac OS Business Edition since they are the only OEM.

Until about a week ago my laptop was a Macbook (and I still have it, though probably not for much longer). So no, I don't need to visit an Apple store to see anything.

See, this is why it's silly to compare across software and business. Sure, Microsoft doesn't do hardware like Apple does, but you can't refute the claim that Apple still only has one version with all the software features for one price. That's why a Macbook Home Edition can do just as much as a Macbook Pro Business Edition.

That's the whole point that some people in this thread are trying to make--they're not trying to cross compare SKUs as a business model, just the concept of less editions of Windows 7. It might not be the smartest move as a business model, but it will be for consumer satisfaction.

(And sure their software sales might not amount to as much revenue as their hardware, but it is still very prominent. Leopard sold 2 million in the first week).

[mad_onion]

just the concept of less editions of Windows 7.

i don't have a problem with less editions if someone can put forward a good suggestion.

people suggesting there not be a ultimate edition is just wrong. if there was no ultimate edition then all the extra features would have to be contained in one of the lesser versions.

either you could put the business features like advanced networking in the home edition which home users don't need. or you can put the home features like media centre in the business version which businesses don't need. obviously neither option is practical.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

There's bothing like a Macbook Home and Business edition, there's no difference software wise between the two and the both are perfectly well suited to work at home or in a business so I can't see how your analogy works with this.

If Apple wants to get more money from business buyers, they'll raise the price of the Macbook, not the price of the OS that comes with the Macbook. They have a higher margin on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook, which is essentially the same as "charging more for the software."

If Microsoft wants to get more money from business buyers, they need to get OEMs to pay more for the OS. They do that by adding features that will be compelling to business users and charging more for them.

The point is that these business models are entirely incomparable.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Brandon Live

[splicer707]

If Apple wants to get more money from business buyers, they'll raise the price of the Macbook, not the price of the OS that comes with the Macbook. They have a higher margin on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook, which is essentially the same as "charging more for the software."

If Microsoft wants to get more money from business buyers, they need to get OEMs to pay more for the OS. They do that by adding features that will be compelling to business users and charging more for them.

The point is that these business models are entirely incomparable.

Honestly, do you know what's totally criminal? Windows Vista Ultimate RRP: $449.00. A non-business purchased paying nearly $500 AUD for Windows?

Charge businesses at business prices. But charge home users 1/3 of the price at most. Otherwise you're ripping people off.

But now we are totally off topic.

Edited August 31, 2008 by splicer707

[mad_onion]

but ultimate has more features than business :s

i'm liking the many logic fails in this thread :)

[splicer707]

but ultimate has more features than business :s

i'm liking the many logic fails in this thread :)

What features would they be?

I can't tell any quality feature differences between the two.

[Ytterbium]

here's the basic list

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-v...ns/default.aspx

[mad_onion]

several programs including media center that businesses don't need.

[splicer707]

Thanks Ytterbium.

The basic difference is really Media Center.

I don't want to make a meal out of it. But IMO the amount of SKU's and the real value between them is tenuous at best.

[stevehoot]

I'm not too sure what this argument is all about....?!

As mentioned earlier, Windows XP has various SKU:

Home

Business

Tablet

MCE

Vista has:

Home Basic

Home Premium

Business

Ultimate

To my mind that's the same.

SKU model's are put in place to get more money out of people, whilst also making it fairer for the people that don't want feature x so shouldn't have to pay for it.

In this respect, Apple and MS are similar in that Apple have a handful of SKU's for this reason - as do Microsoft. I think this is the point Brandon is trying to get across.

To do x you must get this SKU from MS/Apple. However if you don't want that feature then there is a cheaper SKU.

If you want a PC for email and internet then why should you be paying the same as someone that wants to join their PC to a domain whilst running Media Centre and having full disk encryption? That's crazy! Grandma shouldn't need to pay the same as Mr Power User.

I think Home, Home Premium and Business would be enough but then you get the power users (most on these forums!) who want Home Business with the ability to use disk encryption and domain membership / GPO's. Hence Ultimate.

Think the Vista SKU model is pretty good IMHO.

[splicer707]

Just saying that Home Basic and Ultimate are superfluous.

[mad_onion]

Thanks Ytterbium.

The basic difference is really Media Center.

I don't want to make a meal out of it. But IMO the amount of SKU's and the real value between them is tenuous at best.

well you've already "made meal out of it" so you've failed your objective :)

basically it comes down to you think microsoft charge too much for windows because you're saying the version that has all the features costs too much.

Just saying that Home Basic and Ultimate are superfluous.

well if you can think of a better way of doing it...

[Ran Sagy]

While i think pretty much everyone agree about Home Basic, Especially since the difference in price from Home Premium is meager at best, I do believe Ultimate is needed - Like said, Certain people do want a version that has ALL the features - Both those they use for home (Media Center, Tablet PC functions, etc) and the ones they're accustomed to from work (Domain join, Encryption, etc).

Anyway, I do suggest some moderating be done on this topic. We've gone way off by now. Maybe lock this thread, and further discussions on current and future SKUs started on fresh threads in appropriate places?

[bobbba]

If Apple wants to get more money from business buyers, they'll raise the price of the Macbook, not the price of the OS that comes with the Macbook. They have a higher margin on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook, which is essentially the same as "charging more for the software."

If Microsoft wants to get more money from business buyers, they need to get OEMs to pay more for the OS. They do that by adding features that will be compelling to business users and charging more for them.

The point is that these business models are entirely incomparable.

I take your point to a degree but not that the OS sku's do not have to be "entirely incomparable" and that they "need to get OEMs to pay more for the OS". There is no restriction on MS that means that they can only make more money buy selling a premium version of windows, if anything there is pressure on them to do exactly the opposite (like every time a competitor complains about a similar feature is built in to Windows). in fact they could make a whole new market by selling windows features, maybe with something like apple's app store.

Where would the problems be if MS produced just 1 or 2 versions of windows and sold these additional features separately. It would make MS a lot more acceptable to many as there would be no grounds for bundling complaints. there would be competion with whom people bought their add on features from and both consumers and businesses could easily add or drop them as required.

I actually love MS products and in fact that they have helped me to build my career in IT through their ease of use. Something which I think most if not all of their competitors fail to do as well. However I do think the company could operate more simply and fairly by letting the sheer quality of the products stand on their own right and not complicating things with bundling and uneccessary sku's.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

What features would they be?

I can't tell any quality feature differences between the two.

If you want Remote Desktop, Shadow Copy, domain-joining support, you go for Business.

If you want Media Center, Movie Maker, etc - you go for Home Premium.

If you want Remote Desktop and Media Center in the same OS, you buy Ultimate.

If you don't care about any of those things, you go for Home Basic.

It isn't that complicated.

[jjrambo]

If you want Remote Desktop, Shadow Copy, domain-joining support, you go for Business.

If you want Media Center, Movie Maker, etc - you go for Home Premium.

If you want Remote Desktop and Media Center in the same OS, you buy Ultimate.

If you don't care about any of those things, you go for Home Basic.

It isn't that complicated.

No, it's very clear but not really necessary. Why Microsoft can't just make one Windows Version, like Mac OS? Actually this is not a question for you, generally speaking.

I have my big hopes for Windows 7. Whole IE project goes into right direction. IE7 was first step, and that's the only browser i use. Vista GUI unfortunatelly is very dissapointing. I hope Microsoft follows Office 2007 GUI which should be applied to Windows 7 GUI. Aero/Glass is great and i would not mind to get some additional 3d effects such as Cube3D? Windows Media Player 11 is right direction as well. I'm expecting HDDVD and Blue Ray native support with WMP12, and possibly h.264 support. What was dissapointing is that Microsoft lost that MTV Urge Service. Oh man i loved that thing, it owned iTunes big time. They switched to Rhapsody which is utter crap. For $9.99 monthly membership i could download so much of music which i could listen only on my computer but that was worth it. That's all i needed it for.

Windows Mail, Live Mail to be honest with you -> the whole thing is very confusing. I wonder is Microsoft is going to replace all that with one mail client?

I'm glad Microsoft got rid of old Windows Messenger in Vista, and btw Windows Live Messenger is the best messenger i have seen and that thing is going to right direction, i think whole Live thing. Paint, and Wordpad needs to be updated or removed. It's coming from Windows 95 world and it's outdated and useless.

Are we getting new sound support in Windows 7, is it going to be rewritten? Also, Windows 7 should give you ability to customize your setup. To add and remove components we don't need. Also what i noticed with Vista is that you can't set name for your WORKGROUP during the setup process? Are we getting that option back?

WE NEED NEW GUI...Vista GUI is :no:

[Linkinfamous]

No, it's very clear but not really necessary. Why Microsoft can't just make one Windows Version, like Mac OS? Actually this is not a question for you, generally speaking.

I have my big hopes for Windows 7. Whole IE project goes into right direction. IE7 was first step, and that's the only browser i use. Vista GUI unfortunatelly is very dissapointing. I hope Microsoft follows Office 2007 GUI which should be applied to Windows 7 GUI. Aero/Glass is great and i would not mind to get some additional 3d effects such as Cube3D? Windows Media Player 11 is right direction as well. I'm expecting HDDVD and Blue Ray native support with WMP12, and possibly h.264 support. What was dissapointing is that Microsoft lost that MTV Urge Service. Oh man i loved that thing, it owned iTunes big time. They switched to Rhapsody which is utter crap. For $9.99 monthly membership i could download so much of music which i could listen only on my computer but that was worth it. That's all i needed it for.

Windows Mail, Live Mail to be honest with you -> the whole thing is very confusing. I wonder is Microsoft is going to replace all that with one mail client?

I'm glad Microsoft got rid of old Windows Messenger in Vista, and btw Windows Live Messenger is the best messenger i have seen and that thing is going to right direction, i think whole Live thing. Paint, and Wordpad needs to be updated or removed. It's coming from Windows 95 world and it's outdated and useless.

Are we getting new sound support in Windows 7, is it going to be rewritten? Also, Windows 7 should give you ability to customize your setup. To add and remove components we don't need. Also what i noticed with Vista is that you can't set name for your WORKGROUP during the setup process? Are we getting that option back?

WE NEED NEW GUI...Vista GUI is :no:

I'm confused. You like WMP, but don't like the overall look and feel of Vista?

WMP shares UI elements with the taskbar, uses extended glass and 'glassy' buttons like explorer/ie, etc.

It's my personal favorite example of the Vista UI.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

No, it's very clear but not really necessary. Why Microsoft can't just make one Windows Version, like Mac OS? Actually this is not a question for you, generally speaking.

I assume this is becuase Microsoft doesn't want to give up huge amounts of money. If the market wants these options (which is indicated by the fact that so many people purchase them) then that is why they exist. It's a very simple matter of economics.

As I tried to explain, the economics are very different for Apple.

[MiG-]

I assume this is becuase Microsoft doesn't want to give up huge amounts of money. If the market wants these options (which is indicated by the fact that so many people purchase them) then that is why they exist. It's a very simple matter of economics.

As I tried to explain, the economics are very different for Apple.

But surely, if there was only one option available, then that would be bought also?

If you met half-way between the price of the top and the bottom then surely the same number of copies would be sold (thereabouts, anywho) And the same amount of money would be taken if the same number copies were to be sold.

I think its ridiculous saying that there is a market for the lower options, OEM's only use them to bring the price of laptops down. Two Versions of Windows would be a more sensible idea, IMO.

I don't know why this argument has took over this thread either, it was supposed to be performance related, something I don't think you could ever consider when using Windows.

[Preppy Veteran]

I think its ridiculous saying that there is a market for the lower options, OEM's only use them ...

I think you just answered your own argument. :) There's more to it than that, of course, but you not liking a SKU doesn't mean that it doesn't have a target audience. You'll know a SKU doesn't have a target audience because it doesn't get shipped or built. Each 'N' variety of a SKU is expensive, so the wise choices were made here. People disagreeing should review the larger picture and try to understand why the decisions were made, much like the team making these decisions pays attention to your appropriate feedback. Nobody here has brought up anything new so far - the factors brought up all have to be taken into account to have the best possible overall SKU plan.

Let's revisit this exciting discussion after there's been some specific discussion of Windows 7 SKU design. Right now we're just armchair quarterbacking the Vista design, and that's probably not illuminative to those of us interested in this Windows 7 discussion forum. :)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

If you met half-way between the price of the top and the bottom then surely the same number of copies would be sold (thereabouts, anywho) And the same amount of money would be taken if the same number copies were to be sold.

Absolutely positively incorrect. For a detailed explanation, you should take an economics class.

I think its ridiculous saying that there is a market for the lower options, OEM's only use them to bring the price of laptops down. Two Versions of Windows would be a more sensible idea, IMO.

You're right, OEMs only use them to bring the price down. That is, OEMs only use them so that they may sell them to people who want to buy them. If nobody wanted to only consider buying a cheaper laptop, then I'm sure the OEMs would be happy to only sell more expensive ones. But that isn't the case.

Your ask is exactly the same as asking Intel to only ship one speed of Core 2 Duo. I mean, why have a 2Ghz and a 2.8Ghz model? Why not just sell one 2.4Ghz model at a price halfway between? It simplifies things right? And all the same people would buy it right?

Of course not.

In my opinion, most people who think this is true for Windows are people who either A) compare Windows to OS X, which is an unfair comparison because Apple is not a software company and has an entirely different business model. Or, B) they pirate Windows and they think, "Since Windows is free if you pirate it, why would anyone pirate anything but Ultimate? They shouldn't even make the others, who would pirate those?"

I don't know why this argument has took over this thread either, it was supposed to be performance related, something I don't think you could ever consider when using Windows.

I don't know either. How about we get back to talking about performance?

I hear people like it. Have you heard that too?

[MiG-]

Absolutely positively incorrect. For a detailed explanation, you should take an economics class.

You're right, OEMs only use them to bring the price down. That is, OEMs only use them so that they may sell them to people who want to buy them. If nobody wanted to only consider buying a cheaper laptop, then I'm sure the OEMs would be happy to only sell more expensive ones. But that isn't the case.

Your ask is exactly the same as asking Intel to only ship one speed of Core 2 Duo. I mean, why have a 2Ghz and a 2.8Ghz model? Why not just sell one 2.4Ghz model at a price halfway between? It simplifies things right? And all the same people would buy it right?

Of course not.

In my opinion, most people who think this is true for Windows are people who either A) compare Windows to OS X, which is an unfair comparison because Apple is not a software company and has an entirely different business model. Or, B) they pirate Windows and they think, "Since Windows is free if you pirate it, why would anyone pirate anything but Ultimate? They shouldn't even make the others, who would pirate those?"

I don't know either. How about we get back to talking about performance?

I hear people like it. Have you heard that too?

Its not though is it. If an OEM was looking to put windows on a machine, and the only option was the one version, at a set price, then what would the OEM do? They can't move to OSX, and the day OEM's use Linux as mainstream is not here yet. Why would people not buy it anyway? the same people who don't want to pay for windows will still pirate it, and the genuine customers would still buy the versions on the shelf, regardless, if Microsoft brought out two versions, they would both sell.

I think the processor thing is a unfair comparison, as you actually get something worthwhile for your money. You get extra speed. Now this is going to be hard to see in terms of windows, for the average joe. He still sees his start menu, internet explorer. Whereas the processor helps it load quicker. The average joe getting his computer from pc world doesn't care what options are on it, except the specs of the computer, mainly. Thats what sales teams can sell, the power of the machine, not the OS its running.

Its a unfair comparision, but hard to put down in words why.

What are the other options? There isn't any, otherwise, you don't upgrade or move to a completely different platform, the later of two you could probably consider writing off as a viable option, probably due to cost, unless Linux is your thing, but then your most likely to not be buying it in the first place.

I hear people like performance too, but I don't think were ever going to see blazing fast speeds in any version of windows. Its never happened, and I can't see it happening.

[mad_onion]

ok, if you really think you know more than microsoft about how to maximise their profit on windows then so be it but i think most people would disagree with you. that's not saying that they did anything wrong with the windows xp skus but the market changes all the time as do the features within windowss.