Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance

[bobbba]

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.

Where's the evidence that the market does want these options? There's quite a lot of evidence to indicate otherwise:

• Huge demand to keep XP
  Microsoft having to extend the lifetime of XP
  Growing market share for Apple/Mac OS X
  Arguably poor Vista sales
  

and all the above even with Microsoft's starting position. I'd say that whislt there may well be many factors behind these, I think the multiple SKU's could well be a contributing factor.

Premium products may well be a means for some manufacturers to derive greater profit margins, there are many examples of companies that do well with simple basic product ranges.

[mad_onion]

and all the above even with Microsoft's starting position. I'd say that whislt there may well be many factors behind these, I think the multiple SKU's could well be a contributing factor.

yes i would say the main reason is that people see no reason to upgrade to vista when xp works just fine.

i also agree so many SKUs could be a contributing factor. but whether it contributes enough for microsoft's marketing and sales department to actually consider reducing the number of SKUs is a completely different thing. i guess we will see what they think eventually.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

What? None of that makes any sense. Did you read what I posted? If there were no Home Basic, then the OEMs selling it would have to charge more for those PCs. Then they would sell fewer of them. That means they'd buy fewer copies of Windows from Microsoft.

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.

Exactly! That is EXACTLY why Home Basic and the various SKUs exist. Some people don't care about Media Center, Tablet support, Remote Desktop, Domain support, etc. So why would they pay for them? If they have a choice between Home Premium on a 2.4Ghz machine, and Home Basic on a 2.8Ghz machine - those people will choose the latter. You're basically saying that their only choice should be the 2.4Ghz machine. I can't grasp why you think that would be better.

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

No, it's a perfectly valid comparison. That's why you can't explain your counterargument. You say the processor speed is different because you "actually get something worthwhile for your money." Well, Media Center and Remote Desktop are worthwhile for me. Being able to join a domain is worthwhile for business and enterprise users.

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.

Blazing fast compared to what? And by what measure? Windows has always been far superior at game performance than, for instance, the Mac OS.

Where's the evidence that the market does want these options? There's quite a lot of evidence to indicate otherwise:

• Huge demand to keep XP
  Microsoft having to extend the lifetime of XP
  Growing market share for Apple/Mac OS X
  Arguably poor Vista sales
  

First of all, I have to disagree on those counts. Windows XP might have a slightly longer life than it otherwise would have only because there was such a long gap between XP and Vista. It has nothing to do with Vista itself. When Windows 2000 came out, Windows 98 was still in high demand. And when XP came out, both Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were still in high demand. That always happens, but it fades after a few years as the industry catches up to the OS release. If it is slightly exaggerated with Vista, I can promise you it has nothing to do with SKU selection. Heck, the Vista SKUs are a lot simpler to understand (and a lot more useful) than Windows XP SKUs were. I would never have considered using XP Home or recommending it to anyone. But Vista Home Basic is great for many people and uses. With XP, the naming was confusing. Why would Home users be expected to buy Media Center Edition even if they weren't hooking it up to a TV? Why would they be expected not to buy Home edition? That was just weird.

Vista sales have been stellar. Even moreso when you compare to Windows 2000 are an equivalently significant compatibility-breaking release.

[Mikee99]

What? None of that makes any sense. Did you read what I posted? If there were no Home Basic, then the OEMs selling it would have to charge more for those PCs. Then they would sell fewer of them. That means they'd buy fewer copies of Windows from Microsoft.

Exactly! That is EXACTLY why Home Basic and the various SKUs exist. Some people don't care about Media Center, Tablet support, Remote Desktop, Domain support, etc. So why would they pay for them? If they have a choice between Home Premium on a 2.4Ghz machine, and Home Basic on a 2.8Ghz machine - those people will choose the latter. You're basically saying that their only choice should be the 2.4Ghz machine. I can't grasp why you think that would be better.

Brandon, the problem with the Home Basic argument is that many people who purchase those PC's don't know what they are really purchasing. There have been many times where I have stumbled across forum posts where people were complaining about Vista since it didn't have a ton of features. As it turned out, they purchased a PC pre-loaded with Home Basic. The problem, is that experience will give the customer a sour perception about the product. That customer will not typically go to Windows anytime upgrade, they will typically downgrade to XP. And really, there is only a $10 difference in between the OEM of Home Basic and Home Premium. That price difference won't cause a major effect in the marketplace.

Is it true that many people won't use Media Center, Remote Desktop, Domain Support, etc.? Yes, absolutely. However, in the world of perception, the lack of those features bring about a negative perception about the product. Apple's one OS version approach has proven very successful. Most people don't use all the features that Leopard has to offer. But, it doesn't matter because the OS is perceived to have the most features. It doesn't matter if Vista has the same amount of features, if the version that you have does not contain those features, then it's as if they don't exist at all. (And yes, despite Apple's different business model, you must compare MS to Apple because consumers compare them.) Also, what if your needs change and you want to take advantage of those features? Anytime upgrade will appear as a hassle for most consumers.

When Microsoft advertises Vista features, they are essentially advertising Ultimate. They show off BitLocker, the extras, Media Center, Shadow Copy, etc. But, only 1 (very)expensive version of the product has those features. So, when consumers go out to purchase a copy of Vista, it will most likely be home premium. Home Premium does not have BitLocker, the extras, and Shadow Copy. The consumer who purchased that product will be like "WTF?" They feel they got jipped, and it gives them a poor perception about the product.

Perception is everything. Unfortunately, Vista has not succeeded in that regard. Part of the reason is because of the multi-sku system. A majority of people have declared that they want 1 or 2 versions of Windows on the market. If Microsoft wants to avoid a similar backlash against Windows 7, they should listen: reduce the SKU amounts, and lower the price for the best version of the product.

[Preppy Veteran]

Brandon, the problem with the Home Basic argument is that many people who purchase those PC's don't know what they are really purchasing.

Theoretically if faced with different purchase options at different price points this implies to the consumer that there may be levels of differentiation. If your market does not recognize that, then some communication/messaging is missing and/or failing. If they "don't know what they are really purchasing", this is a failure on the part as the provider/marketer. Clearly in your opinion there are some lessons to be taken from that.

A majority of people have declared that they want 1 or 2 versions of Windows on the market.

A majority of people may have also declared that they would like gas at $2 per gallon, free ice cream, and only one car on the market which gets 99mpg but does everything. You're getting into wishes versus the marketplace, and it's a bad tangent. I would encourage you to review market-tailored strategies within the world of economics. We're kind of getting into more of an economics than a technology discussion: this seems like the wrong forum for that. :)

Even accepting that the *declarations* of the majority are interesting, the actual purchasing patterns may belie those declarations. We can accept that principles of simplicity are voiced, but when the dollar hits the road, perhaps people spend differently.

I would bet that the people in charge of making these types of product decisions have the information necessary to actually prove how people have been deciding to spend their money.

If Microsoft wants to avoid a similar backlash against Windows 7, they should listen: reduce the SKU amounts, and lower the price for the best version of the product.

I can't speak for Brandon or anyone or anything else other than myself, but I'm actually on the SKU team. Nobody here has brought up any new points or thoughts so far. Nobody here has any knowledge whatsoever as regards Windows 7 plans, so you're still rehashing thoughts on Vista in a Win7 forum. You're all smart people and I look forward to seeing informed Windows 7 discussions in the future once there's something useful to talk about. :)

[splicer707]

Some great information and in this thread.

But at the end it's just words. When can we expect a public beta 1?

[Ran Sagy]

Well, We're a full two years away from release, If i understand the schedule correctly. So I'd say another year before the Beta\RC cycle, Based solely on what i remember what i remember from the Vista cycle.

[mad_onion]

Well, We're a full two years away from release, If i understand the schedule correctly. So I'd say another year before the Beta\RC cycle, Based solely on what i remember what i remember from the Vista cycle.

you don't understand the schedule, windows 7 should rtm at the end of 2009 for public availability in Jan 2010.

expect a new build at winhec november 5-7

[Ran Sagy]

I remembered end of 2010 for some reason, Hence my wording.

Public display of builds during WinHEC or PDC is quite normal, Be he was talking about a build branded as beta.

It's all an estimate, However.

[bobbba]

I can't speak for Brandon or anyone or anything else other than myself, but I'm actually on the SKU team. Nobody here has brought up any new points or thoughts so far. Nobody here has any knowledge whatsoever as regards Windows 7 plans, so you're still rehashing thoughts on Vista in a Win7 forum. You're all smart people and I look forward to seeing informed Windows 7 discussions in the future once there's something useful to talk about. :)

I suggested basic versions of windows with extra features available easily and simply from an MS version of Apple App store.

It would introduce a new market for MS that could generate a lot of money for them.

For consumers it would mean a simpler leaner windows that could be added to with the features that they actually want and need instead of trying to pick a sku that possibly has things that they don't want.

From a monopoly point of view it would open things up so competitors could offer their equivalent of MS features. Other media players, dvd burners, photo packages for example.

I'd be interested to hear what you and Brandon think of the idea.

[Preppy Veteran]

How isn't that what Windows is now? Are you unable to buy software now?

Depending upon your delineation point, you either have exactly what Windows is now, exactly what Windows N is now, or almost exactly what Windows Embedded is now.

Again, what you're saying is definitely not any sort of new concept. I feel like we're rehashing the same basic elements of SKU design. I look forward to having a Windows 7-based discussion at some point. I'm excited about it too, I just don't think this conversation currently really benefits anyone much. :(

Edited September 8, 2008 by zachdms

[1759]

Features I would love to see in Windows 7 - let me completely remove IE (or any other included application). If I don't want Safari in OSX, I just drag it to the trash, but IE is integrated with Windows, why? It's a huge security risk, and I'd rather not deal with it. Opera or FF please. Not to mention IE8 is slower and less standards compliant than all the other browsers.

Less wizards that use wizards and dialog windows that confuse and annoy noobies and power users alike. I remember when I could get to certain network settings in XP in like half the time, compared to Vista. And on the related note, please make the control panel easier to navigate. Both what Vista has now by default and the classic view become a real mess, as there are a ton of options/icons, and that before you even add peripherals. Of all the things to copy from Apple, please copy Apple's Preferences dialog.

Faster overall boot and shutdown times. Actually my boot times in Vista aren't bad, but shutdown and restart take ages. Fix it.

[anonymous_user]

Depending upon your delineation point, you either have exactly what Windows is now, exactly what Windows N is now, or almost exactly what Windows Embedded is now.

Then I say they should make Windows Embedded into a retail SKU. A modularized, lite version of Windows that consumer can buy from a store.

[thealexweb]

I suppose this is a step in the right direction

[Preppy Veteran]

anon_u: That's a rehash of a non-original notion previously voiced ad nauseam in this thread that I replied to previously. To save you the hassle, here's the post.

[BajiRav]

Features I would love to see in Windows 7 - let me completely remove IE (or any other included application). If I don't want Safari in OSX, I just drag it to the trash, but IE is integrated with Windows, why? It's a huge security risk, and I'd rather not deal with it. Opera or FF please. Not to mention IE8 is slower and less standards compliant than all the other browsers.

Less wizards that use wizards and dialog windows that confuse and annoy noobies and power users alike. I remember when I could get to certain network settings in XP in like half the time, compared to Vista. And on the related note, please make the control panel easier to navigate. Both what Vista has now by default and the classic view become a real mess, as there are a ton of options/icons, and that before you even add peripherals. Of all the things to copy from Apple, please copy Apple's Preferences dialog.

Faster overall boot and shutdown times. Actually my boot times in Vista aren't bad, but shutdown and restart take ages. Fix it.

You don't actually remove Safari (or Webkit to be correct) and Quicktime completely without breaking OS X. That Safari.app is (somewhat) equivalent to removing IE shortcut in start menu.

[1759]

You don't actually remove Safari (or Webkit to be correct) and Quicktime completely without breaking OS X. That Safari.app is (somewhat) equivalent to removing IE shortcut in start menu.

Crap, you're right...I'm surprised more Macs aren't broken then. QT I figured was tied to the OS, and so many iLife apps use it too, that would break something.

[KevinN206]

Features I would love to see in Windows 7 - let me completely remove IE (or any other included application). If I don't want Safari in OSX, I just drag it to the trash, but IE is integrated with Windows, why? It's a huge security risk, and I'd rather not deal with it. Opera or FF please. Not to mention IE8 is slower and less standards compliant than all the other browsers.

Less wizards that use wizards and dialog windows that confuse and annoy noobies and power users alike. I remember when I could get to certain network settings in XP in like half the time, compared to Vista. And on the related note, please make the control panel easier to navigate. Both what Vista has now by default and the classic view become a real mess, as there are a ton of options/icons, and that before you even add peripherals. Of all the things to copy from Apple, please copy Apple's Preferences dialog.

Faster overall boot and shutdown times. Actually my boot times in Vista aren't bad, but shutdown and restart take ages. Fix it.

If anything, IE7 might be safer than firefox and such on Vista due to Protected Mode with UAC on having the least privileges.

[anonymous_user]

anon_u: That's a rehash of a non-original notion previously voiced ad nauseam in this thread that I replied to previously. To save you the hassle, here's the post.

So youre saying that it probably wont happen anytime soon? Oh well, at least vLite exists :)

[PGHammer]

Microsoft has had a home version of Windows and a professional version of Windows for many many years.

Back then, though, it was:

Home: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME

Professional: Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000

It wasn't until XP that the product lines were merged, and we started seeing names like "Home" and "Professional" as suffixes.

A *home* version of Windows 2000 was, in fact, in the works prior to Windows Millenium Edition (or have we forgotten Neptune?). It was the home-PC vendors that argued in favor of another 9x-based OS release, saying that users weren't ready to shift whole-hog to NT. (I was among those that castigated such thinking, pointing out that there were, in fact, very few applications that could not run *untouched* on Windows 98 Second Edition or Windows 2000 Professional.)

What it really comes down to is that the Swiss Army knife that Windows has always been has, in a way, come back to bite it in that it is used for so many different tasks and in so many different roles (including quite a few that had never previously been in the purview of a consumer OS). However, note that despite the growth of Windows' code base, it still remains *smaller* than OS X (Leopard is almost twice the size of Vista Ultimate x64, despite it supporting far less hardware, and not even Xcode is responsible for that much bloat).

The other part of the *problem* is that computer roles change over a system's lifetime (due to the changing users, or even simply due to the user getting more comfortable with the computer). How would an operating system deal with that aside from having the necessary additional *bits* already available when the user needs/wants them? (That is, and has been, the approach taken by OS X.) I have, as a system-builder, taken a similar approach in that I will only preload Vista Ultimate (x86 or x64) on any new PC I build. (How many OEMs do this today?)

Basically, the only reason that there are multiple SKUs of Windows (even Vista) today is because that is what we have insisted on. (How often has someone here on Neowin *insisted* that users only need Vista Home Premium, then something comes along that requires a feature only available in Ultimate, or that while it may be available in Home Premium, requires additional software, and spending additional money, where Ultimate has the feature available from the start?) The proverb "penny wise; pound foolish" comes to mind.

The Windows Seven milestone codebase, like that of every previous Win32 client OS, starts with the *kitchen sink* (Professional/Ultimate) not just because it makes testing a heck of a lot easier, but because it also factors in an additional component of OS test analysis - user comfort and growth over time (basically, how the user settles in as he becomes more familiar with what the operating system is capable of). Time will only tell as to whether or not a fracture is *forced* like it has been with the last two releases of the Windows client OS) or whether common sense takes hold at the OEM/reseller level and the number of sold SKUs is severely pruned.