Windows 7 -- Approach to System Performance

By splicer707
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Proficient

splicer707

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Business, Home, Home Ultimate, Server

That's all they need todo.

Business should be cut down, no sparkly effects, just raw performance and ease of use

Home should be basic, a few effects here and there but again performance focused for standard families.

Home ultimate should be the best looking version of them all, many effects, gaming performance mode, lots of extras

Server, standard server edition

(Y)

Good. Let's get rid of Basic. It's useless. Same for Vista Ultimate. I purchased it, and I don't know but it's no better than Home Premium.

Experienced

backdrifter

Posted
Posted

Low end SKUs should definetely be canceled in certain markets or controlled carefully. Do you know how many small OEMs here put Vista Starter Editions in their cheap boxes to save a couple of bucks, where they would even probably run Home Premium? You should of see the faces of people when I told them it was an OS limitation after they asked me why they can't run more than 3 programs at the same time. Definetely not a good marketing image for Microsoft, is it?

Veteran

bobbba

Posted
Posted
It is impossible for Microsoft to have only one SKU of Windows. It would cost billions of dollars to give up even one of the existing SKUs. It's just not going to happen.

Apple has multiple OS editions at differnet price points too. You just don't notice because they bake it into the price of their hardware. Since their business operates in an entirely different way than Microsoft, you cannot compare the two.

Also, Apple is mainly interested in converting PC buyers into Mac buyers. Thus, success / growth for them means taking someone who would have bought a PC and getting them to buy a Mac. For Microsoft, everybody already buys PCs. Getting new people to buy PCs is very difficult since there are only so many people in the world (and only so many in a position to buy a computer).

So it's hard for Microsoft to grow by getting new users. So instead, Microsoft's best option for growth is to get existing users to pay more. That can mean buying more computers, buying new kinds of devices (like an Xbox, a Media Center, a Tablet, or a Windows Home Server). But it can also mean buying more expensive versions of Windows. In order to do that, those higher-priced editions need to offer compelling enough feature sets or other advantages that make them worth more money to a significant number of people.

Really, asking for one version of Windows is like asking Sony to stop making different PS3s with different hard drive sizes. Well yeah, if you only want the 40GB one then you don't care about the other options. But some people want the option to pay more for an 80GB or 120GB version. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't offer the option. Now, some of you will say that Microsoft should just sell Ultimate at the cheapest price. That's just like saying that Sony should get rid of the 40GB and 80GB PS3s and sell a 120GB model at the price of the 40GB. It won't happen because it's a losing proposition for them, and asking for it just makes you sound ridiculous.

Sounds fair in theory but the impact is really unpleasant options for the consumer. An OS should be a platform for building from. It would be far more consumer friendly for MS to make adding the different features of their OS versions by buying them afterwards. None of this "I want feature x but have os version x so I need to buy os version y and then either upgrade the OS or reinstall the OS".

All of the following could be purchaseable otions:

Domain support

Disk Encryption

Virtual PC host

Media Center

Tablet support

Dreamscene

Windows Games

Photo gallery

Movie maker

Businesses would not be loaded with unwanted options and consumers could easily add the business features they wanted and MS gets a new market to make money from. Everyone's a winner.

Maybe MS should have thought through the difficulties they were generating with the multiple sku's before they added so many.

Mentor

M118LR

Posted
Posted
Basic shouldn't exist, home premium and business are like xp home and pro, and ultimate just includes options from those 2 (like pro was the real deal). but yeah, scrap ultimate too. I would ship just a server and a client version

You are incorrect in your statement on Home Basic and Home Premium.

Home Basic is equal to XP Home.

Home Premium is equal to XP MCE

Business is equal to XP Pro

The only new SKU to Vista is Ultimate.

Community Regular

Mikee99

Posted
Posted

My suggestion to the whole Windows version debacle is for them to make 2 main versions, and then a server product:

1.) Windows Business - Contains everything except for Media Center, Games, Movie Maker, DVD Maker, and other multimedia packages. This is suitable for both home and business users, and is the less expensive version.

2.) Windows Complete - The complete version of Windows. This is for both home and business users.

3.) Windows Server - Server product.

And finally, they should lower the price. My "Windows Complete" suggestion should not sell for more than $200 for a full retail version.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I know Apple has it's Server product and Desktop product.

The Desktop product is just one version, there is no multiple SKU's in Retail.

Brandon. I hate to sound like a broken record. But Apple and Linux distributions do this. You buy one version. It's the complete version. You then choose what to not install in custom installation settings. Comparing Hardware to Software is not really comparing apples with apples.

No, they do NOT have one edition.

They have the Macbook and they have the Macbook Pro. Those are different price points. Different SKUs, if you will. One has more features and costs more than the other. It's the exact same thing. Why would Apple bother to have "Macbook with OS X Home Edition" and "Macbook Pro with OS X Business Edition" when they might as well just call them the Macbook and Macbook Pro?

If they sold their OS to OEMs, then it would be a fair comparison.

Linux obviously isn't a fair comparison, it's free. You can't have different price points if they're all free. Make no mistake, the whole point of different SKUs is different price points.

Mentor

Ran Sagy

Posted
Posted
My suggestion to the whole Windows version debacle is for them to make 2 main versions, and then a server product:

1.) Windows Business - Contains everything except for Media Center, Games, Movie Maker, DVD Maker, and other multimedia packages. This is suitable for both home and business users, and is the less expensive version.

2.) Windows Complete - The complete version of Windows. This is for both home and business users.

3.) Windows Server - Server product.

And finally, they should lower the price. My "Windows Complete" suggestion should not sell for more than $200 for a full retail version.

Vista Business costs more than Home Premium, Or i would have bought it. Never had a need for Media Center.

I have to agree with both approaches, Which is exactly what Steve is trying to say - There is no clear-cut solution. You have to compromise.

Personally, I'd love it if Microsoft put a "Custom Install" option, clearly noting that it is NOT supported. The people who would bother to use are most likely advanced users, Who wouldn't need Microsoft support either way.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Sounds fair in theory but the impact is really unpleasant options for the consumer. An OS should be a platform for building from. It would be far more consumer friendly for MS to make adding the different features of their OS versions by buying them afterwards. None of this "I want feature x but have os version x so I need to buy os version y and then either upgrade the OS or reinstall the OS".

All of the following could be purchaseable otions:

Domain support

Disk Encryption

Virtual PC host

Media Center

Tablet support

Dreamscene

Windows Games

Photo gallery

Movie maker

Businesses would not be loaded with unwanted options and consumers could easily add the business features they wanted and MS gets a new market to make money from. Everyone's a winner.

Maybe MS should have thought through the difficulties they were generating with the multiple sku's before they added so many.

That's more or less how it works today, right? Yeah there's no a la carte option, but you can buy Home Basic and then use the Windows Anytime Upgrade feature to turn it into Business or Home Premium if you want those features.

The only major difference between Home Basic and Home Premium is Media Center support. Other than that it's all little things like Flip3D and such).

Veteran

-Hiroshi-

Posted
Posted

Brandon, may I make a quickie request, you can ignore it....but...

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND RIGHT IN THE WORLD! lol..

Anyways, how about UI unification, for instance, in the classic non-glass areas of Vista, like in those apps that use XP style menus and such, it looks horrible, outstretched and out of place..

post-118616-1220048615_thumb.jpg

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
No, they do NOT have one edition.

They have the Macbook and they have the Macbook Pro. Those are different price points. Different SKUs, if you will. One has more features and costs more than the other. It's the exact same thing. Why would Apple bother to have "Macbook with OS X Home Edition" and "Macbook Pro with OS X Business Edition" when they might as well just call them the Macbook and Macbook Pro?

If they sold their OS to OEMs, then it would be a fair comparison.

Linux obviously isn't a fair comparison, it's free. You can't have different price points if they're all free. Make no mistake, the whole point of different SKUs is different price points.

That's a silly comparison, because they sell 10.5 as a single product as well and not just bundled with the hardware. Apple did sell hardware before they released 10.5 and consumers are welcome to upgrade if they want--everybody will pay a flat price for a single version that has all the features.

A Macbook Pro does not have more software features than a Macbook. Neither does a Mac Pro. Nor an iMac. The difference in prices are merely between the hardware--not software.

Apprentice

Iced_Eagle

Posted
Posted
Brandon, may I make a quickie request, you can ignore it....but...

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND RIGHT IN THE WORLD! lol..

Anyways, how about UI unification, for instance, in the classic non-glass areas of Vista, like in those apps that use XP style menus and such, it looks horrible, outstretched and out of place..

http://www.aerotaskforce.com/

Proficient

splicer707

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That's a silly comparison, because they sell 10.5 as a single product as well and not just bundled with the hardware. Apple did sell hardware before they released 10.5 and consumers are welcome to upgrade if they want--everybody will pay a flat price for a single version that has all the features.

A Macbook Pro does not have more software features than a Macbook. Neither does a Mac Pro. Nor an iMac. The difference in prices are merely between the hardware--not software.

Thanks @ giga. (Y)

Perhaps Brandon needs to go to a Mac store and see for himself.

Microsoft has got to realize that whatever their (flawed, IMO) justifications, most customers don't want to choose from the number of Windows versions that are currently available. IMO For Home customers their should be - Windows Home and for Enthusiasts - Windows Premium. Get rid of Ultimate, that was a scam.

Then for Business have a Windows Business and Windows Server. That's it! That has got to be easier for everyone.

Grand Master

soldier1st

Posted
Posted

what would be a good solution is make 3 versions. a business version that has stuff a business needs and a business can purchase a few extras if needed and a home version for home users that has all a home user needs and have 1 that has the best of both worlds but the 3rd one could have backwards compatability at least partialy removed and cost slighty more than the home version but less than the business version but if you needed backwards compatability turned on fully ypu could have an option to do that.

Grand Master

chrisj1968

Posted
Posted

The reason Windows hasn't grasped on to this subject can be found in linux. Linux has the repos to install WHAT a user wants through..well YAST since I like Opensuse. it doesn't shove all that crap down our throats at install.

this is my thought on windows 7

win7wi5.jpg

Veteran

Preppy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Microsoft has got to realize that whatever their (flawed, IMO) justifications

But the thing is that these things have to be REALLY well justified. If you have some profound analysis that countered the SKU design plans and led to some particular revelation - get a job in this space. Given all the available data out there, the Vista plan was designed. And any Windows 7 design would have to account for all the relevant factors as well, with the benefit of hindsight upon the Vista plan. Any plans have to be analyzed and approved given all available data. If somebody decides to just ignore important feedback without great justification, they're probably not going to succeed or keep their job.

I think the consistent point you raise is that the Vista SKU story could be cleaned up. I don't believe the Windows 7 SKU story if any is public at this time, and the article in question certainly doesn't key off of that. Assume that the right people here are not idiots, understand your criticism, and more importantly understand that any SKU variation comes at a non-trivial cost to the company.

Taken at least the last two points for granted (haters can assume the MS world is made up of monkeys on keyboards if they need to) combined with the fact that a new robust componentization system was first generally introduced in Vista, I would assume that Windows 7 would probably build off of that. Catering to the vLite "My Personal Win SKU" crowd requires significant cost (testing 10,000 variations well, oddly enough, takes around 10,000 tests). The "There Should Only Be 'N' SKUs" crowd should avoid a street rumble with the vLite crowd and realize that there has to be some pretty profound justification for any given SKU. If you personally don't feel that there should be 'N' SKUs, you should realize that that's your personal opinion without all the facts on hand. I can probably hook you up with the right people if you're really interested in a job in SKU design. If we're just armchair quarterbacking here, that's cool, but it's strange in a Windows 7 thread given that I'm not aware that the Windows 7 SKU plan is being publicly discussed at this point. :)

All these opinions prooffered so far are valuable and all are concerns or considerations that the right people are aware of. <3

Proficient

splicer707

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@ zachdms. Do you work for Microsoft? (zachd_at_online.microsoft.com) ?

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

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

There must have been reason, perhaps it was made by the marketing team? Either way. It's No. 1 Confusion Central.

I don't hate Microsoft or Vista. I like Vista, now, that it's had it's SP1, drivers are solid and compatibility has been improved.

Microsoft however should take a good look at itself. Windows is becoming an unwieldy behemoth.

Componization needs to be accelerated.

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

Multithreading / SMP need to take priority at Kernel level and Application level. By the time Windows 7 ships computers are

likely to ship standard with a Quad Core CPU and 4 to 8GB RAM.

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

If you're offering me a job at Microsoft. Seriously. Let's talk. I can talk the talk and walk the walk.

Edited by splicer707
Mentor

argonite

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

You mean too much customizing. Well, Apple doesn't have to release quite as many patches as MS does.

And REALLY is it too hard to figure out what Vista version you want?

Am I using it mostly at home? Home Premium

Am I using it mostly at work? Business

Am I a home-business? Ultimate

Made the wrong choice? Windows Anytime Upgrade

This is perhaps the OEM's fault, Microsoft's fault, and the user's. For a long time, the pre-installed Windows has usually been the 'right' one for the user. Now it's occasionally the wrong one because the OEM shoves Vista Basic on it. I

Rising Star

Buu

Posted
Posted

Simple. 2 versions.

1) Professional

2) Home

XP had it right as far as i am concerned. No confusion. If you are a professional or business buy Professional. If you are a home user, buy Home. Done and dusted.

Microsoft should NOT be complicating this part. Its essential for them to nail it on the head. I think XP nailed it. No confusion.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
That's a silly comparison, because they sell 10.5 as a single product as well and not just bundled with the hardware. Apple did sell hardware before they released 10.5 and consumers are welcome to upgrade if they want--everybody will pay a flat price for a single version that has all the features.

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.

A Macbook Pro does not have more software features than a Macbook. Neither does a Mac Pro. Nor an iMac. The difference in prices are merely between the hardware--not software.

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.

Thanks @ giga. (Y)

Perhaps Brandon needs to go to a Mac store and see for himself.

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.

Proficient

splicer707

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

If you're giving it away. I'll send you my postal address. ;)

Veteran

bobbba

Posted
Posted
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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.