A trusted source has indicated that Microsoft has released Windows 7 Home Premium beta to a select group of 1000 users to get a firsthand look at the next major release of Windows.The Home Premium beta comes listed with an assortment of features, few less than the public release of Windows 7 due on Friday to everybody, mentioned in tonight's annual CES keynote.
The Home Premium is a perfect suit for home users, with a cheaper price tag, compared with Vista Home Premium, to Vista Ultimate, and a few less built in programs, that are only available to the full version. The upgrade program, also available to users who wish to upgrade from Home Premium, is the main focus of this specialised Beta
Windows 7 is to be the next major release of its operating system, Windows. No official release date has been set for Windows 7, but many speculate to see it as early as the 2009 holiday season. The build version matches that of the Public Windows 7 beta, Windows 7 Beta Build 6.1.7000
As my source tells me, there will be a small review on the features soon
If we're going to beta test for MS, the least they could do is give us the real version with all the features to test, dammit.
First major mistake of the Windows 7 release. More to come, I assume.
If we're going to beta test for MS, the least they could do is give us the real version with all the features to test, dammit.
First major mistake of the Windows 7 release. More to come, I assume.
You don't know what you're talking about...
Don't you think MS might want to test all the various versions? *sigh*
The sense of entitlement some people have...
Last edited by Kirkburn on 08 Jan 2009 - 15:11
If we're going to beta test for MS, the least they could do is give us the real version with all the features to test, dammit.
First major mistake of the Windows 7 release. More to come, I assume.
Home Premium is only available to 1000 beta testers, everyone else is testing on Ultimate.
Oh yes, heaven forbid some of us who have been top tier beta testers for MS for 20 years should feel any "entitlement". 8P
You're talking out of your arse, my friend. All testers got Ultimate. The 1000 got Home Premium as well so they could test the anytime upgrade process.
You can virtual box it. No harm in that
That is what I plan to do
Hate to say it, but lesser seems like more. Vista Ultimate was a waste of money, because there was such a HUGE lack of "extras"
Uh no, if you bought Ultimate for the extras than you are a fool.
Ultimate combines the feature-sets of both Business and Home Premium, which was the main point of the SKU.
Ultimate combines the feature-sets of both Business and Home Premium, which was the main point of the SKU.
Ultimate was marketed with Ultimate Extras as a major selling point. I agree that it shouldn't influence a decision on whether to purchase Ultimate or not, but a lot of people did buy it for all that was promised after the purchase.
With the push on touch computing wonder if they will include tablet pc options in HomeP, that will be the real question.
With the push on touch computing wonder if they will include tablet pc options in HomeP, that will be the real question.
we dont know what will be taken out of windows 7 home P so dont make things up, and as for windows vista and CPUs well by default windows 7 will support up to 267CPUs but Ms has never said a limitation on the # of Cores each one has
Vista Home Premium already had Tablet PC functions.
From my experience, if I'm correct. I don't think Vista Home Premium has Remote Desktop. I think it's only Business and Ultimate. You can obviously remote into it though.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No one gives a crap about any version of Vista or Windows 7 other than "Ultimate", which is just marketing speak for "the REAL version of Windows that we're advertising with nothing artificially gimped by our marketing/tiered pricing droids".
If Apple can release ONE version of OSX at a time, so can MS. Learn from the mistakes of Vista.
One version of Windows 7 for all. Anything else is just stupid...again!
Agree though, single version of the OS, but we know it won't happen....
With literally millions of possible hardware combinations....
Besides, long gone are the days when you didn't have enough RAM or hard drive space to run everything. This isn't the 80's anymore.
From tech support (highest cost to any software company), to online reviews, and end user confusion issues, one version for a fair price is the smartest way to go.
Indeed. It doesn't ever have a hope of comparing.
The stuff that goes in the highest model is more expensive. The only difference for Windows is that it's not a physical difference. They still had to pay the coders though.
So, no, tiered functionality sets are not going anywhere, unless you want to price Windows out of the range of most users.
Well they won't. That isn't the goal. Apple actually avoids doing that for reasons already stated. And it's a relief. But if you want a gaming OS, then Windows is the way to go. Because that's what all the hardware is for: games. Games leverage all that. That's it. Choice in Logitech Quickcams hardly matters, or choice in printers. Take out the enterprise factor and just view Windows as a consumer OS, and you'll find all it really excels in is gaming. It turns your PC into a gaming console with a keyboard attachment.
Anyway, it's certainly possible for MS to release a single version. But that's not the most profitable way for them to go, apparently.
Last edited by LTD on 08 Jan 2009 - 14:33
And Windows is (and always has) primarily been about business, and that's where the real money is.
I agree with you on that point, fair enough. We can't deny the role that Windows plays in the enterprise, and for the time being, businesses do rely on Windows.
The stuff that goes in the highest model is more expensive. The only difference for Windows is that it's not a physical difference. They still had to pay the coders though.
So, no, tiered functionality sets are not going anywhere, unless you want to price Windows out of the range of most users.
Just to put my 2 cents in. Everyone keeps comparing the vista sku's to cars. They are two different industries that are NOT that simliar in the way they operate. Quit comparing apples and oranges!
I know, they're not directly comparable - one creates physical products, with associated costs.
However, the idea is just to put it in terms more familiar to most people, because software development is not as simple as "make a product, send it out the door". If you can think of a better comparison, please do tell
Last edited by Kirkburn on 08 Jan 2009 - 16:08
And yet, your analogy is utterly upside down and so you only muddle the issue rather than bring clarity. It COSTS MS money to gimp the OS just so they can marketing tier the release. All the software programming, R&D, etc. is already done and paid for, regardless of which version you buy, period.
The Windows segmentation debacle (OEMs now install only two of the nine released versions of Vista on PCs) was purely to try and milk as much cash for the same product from different marketing tiers of customers. Because of those undelivered "Ultimate Extras", the top tier paid a lot of additional money for Vista for a couple of shareware-level "extras" and, ffs, language packs(?!) that should be part of the OS by default.
Vista needed all the help it could get at release and this MBA 101 insanity did not help. At least MS has seen fit to reduce this to 2 or 3 versions now...
...but it still should just be one. At whatever price the market will bear.
Oh and not everyone is a tech guru, so not everyone needs full blown Windows that cost them a arm and a leg.
I dont agree that there should be only one version of windows.
Last edited by gtxvortex on 08 Jan 2009 - 12:17
Why on earth do you think that it should be comparable to the price of a CPU? That's ridiculous and unsubstantiated.
+1
I agree, ex, but doing so might end up impacting MS' bottom line.
How do the development costs of Windows bear any relation to the cost of CPUs? Humans don't go down in price, even if manufacturing methods do.
And when you say every modern OS, which are you referring to? Linux is free, but has many different distributions. OS X has a relatively small market, and has little reason for business/consumer versions, because one would have almost no demand.
Do you really think the OS environment from 30-15 years ago is applicable today? Back then, there were few consumer-centric requirements - but then you saw the emergence of Windows NT and Windows 3.1/95/98 ... different versions for different requirements. This isn't something new to XP/Vista/7.
So $1,012.99 for Windows Ultimate (Core i7 965 Extreme) and $189.99 for Windows Home Premium (Core 2 Quad 2.33Ghz)?
Those are just Intel prices found on NewEgg this morning.
I wouldn't say the price of the CPU, but certainly when the OS (at launch and still in some retail places) costs more than a PC, something is wrong.
When Vista was launched the commercial prices was $400USD (or higher depending on the store). For that price, someone looking for a standard no-frills PC for e-mail, surfing and chatting, could get a decently spec'd box (for its intended purpose) for less than $400; including monitor, OS and other accessories.
I fail to see the reason why an operating system should cost more, or more than half the price than the majority of the PCs it runs on. Joe consumer doesn't build their own box.
I fail to see the reason why an operating system should cost more, or more than half the price than the majority of the PCs it runs on. Joe consumer doesn't build their own box.
That was my point exactly. I'm sorry some of you got confused.
ultimate buyers paid a premium for very little.
An Ultimate edition makes perfect sense. Businesses don't want to pay for things like Media Centre and Home users dont want to pay for things like the ability to join a domain or whole drive encryption.
I agree with excalpius though that the Ultimate Extras were pretty poor on the whole and should've been available to everyone.
NO ONE IS PAYING FOR ANY OF THOSE FEATURES. All of of them are already coded, on the install DVD, etc. etc. All MS marketing has done is sold you a gimped version for the price the OS should have been in the FIRST place.
No business/home user is forced to use MC, drive encryption, etc. just because the shortcut now exists where it didn't before.
Vista should be PRICED as Home Premium, but have ALL the actual Vista features, whether you use them or not...just like Apple of any other Operating System released since the 1980's.
They've conditioned you to think that you should pay tiered pricing (for no financial/cost reason whatsoever) and you've bought it.
Are you going to suggest that Product XYZ and Product XYZ Pro should cost the same, because they can be put on the same install, even though XYZ Pro had far more time and effort put into it by the developer?
No, I didn't think so.
If I don't want the features in the Pro version, why should I have to subsidise the cost of it for other users? I'm not going to pay more for stuff I don't want, and the developer is not going to charge less for his full version.
Vista tiers were artificially created just to segment the sales market, causing confusion across the board amongst OEMs and end-users. Like the Vista Capable fiasco it was done for purely marketing reasons and cost Vista a lot of credibility at release.
So, obviously, MS has agreed that my position is correct here in that Windows 7 has been reduced back down to 2 or 3 versions and there is no Windows 7 Capable program.
And I'll tell you now that the ONLY reason we still have 2 or 3 versions is that the grossly incompetent MS marketing team (need we debate that?!) needs SOMETHING to do in order to keep their jobs.
Last edited by excalpius on 09 Jan 2009 - 06:42
Offering one version of Windows with a single set of features means selling it at one price. Why, as "Joe Public", would I want to pay for business features I don't need or want?
Edit: This is in reply to #5 by excalpius, must have used the wrong reply box. Sorry :-(
I think the windows 7 home premiun released to beta it´s only for test the windows anytime upgrade, not?
I´m downloading the ultimate versions...
Sorry about my english, I don´t speak english very well...
See my post above to answer your question. You are thinking exactly the way MS has trained you to think. No one is "paying for different features than anyone else". You've all paid for EVERYTHING Vista, one way or another. They've just gimped the install to force a second tier premium payment.
And for the record, EVERYONE I have talked to inside MS agrees with this position. It is a HUGE pain in the ass to do this on so many levels, but Marketing drives this stupidity - based on very antiquated thinking (re: Vista's nigh-infinite released versions). It's stupid marketing MBA 101 thinking.
The ONLY way this would make sense is if the "Home" version was the FREE/Trialware version and the "Ultimate" was the Pro/paid for tier. The same as every single other software vendor in the world. Then you'd have a case.
But that's not the ticket...not at all. You've bought into the lie and are now defending it.
PS And yes, the "reply to comment" option still doesn't always work right with this updated forum...I got hosed the same way.
I've also responded to your other points above, but to repeat the main one: the fact the install disc includes multiple versions means absolutely nothing. The media itself is a tiny tiny tiny part of the overall cost: you are paying for the time to develop the features. What exists on the DVD is irrelevant.
(Also, lol, free versions of Windows? What planet are you on? "Expensive" is not countered by "free", it's countered by "less expensive")
Last edited by Kirkburn on 08 Jan 2009 - 14:24
I've also responded to your other points above, but to repeat the main one: the fact the install disc includes multiple versions means absolutely nothing. The media itself is a tiny tiny tiny part of the overall cost: you are paying for the time to develop the features. What exists on the DVD is irrelevant.
(Also, lol, free versions of Windows? What planet are you on? The opposite of expensive is not "free")
He doesn't seem to learn does he.
I'm not taking sides here, this argument works 2fold but ... excalpius is trying to say that even though their were different versions, the 'better' version was not 'better' at all. Packing a 'better' version with useless (this is subjective) features is not a legit reason to sell a different version of the software at a higher price.
What makes a feature useless? One person's useless is another person's invaluable. I'm sure businesses class media centre as useless for them, the same way most home users class domain joining as useless for them.
Guess you missed that part that said THIS IS SUBJECTIVE.
Then what's your argument? Windows isn't going to make a different version of the OS that meets each and every persons subjective demands.
However, there are different demands, for businesses, gamers, low-end PCs. So Windows does some targetting.
He can't just say "(this is subjective)" and expect it to pass without argument.
However, there are different demands, for businesses, gamers, low-end PCs. So Windows does some targetting.
He can't just say "(this is subjective)" and expect it to pass without argument.
This is valid reasoning for why there should be different releases of each OS. But on the other hand, why can't there just be -one- release that does everything right from the get go (which is what excalpius is saying)? You could choose to omit parts of the install that you wish to not have on your machine.
I understand it both ways... and of course Microsoft will go with different versions so they can make more money/cater to users needs, etc.. so whatever...
Last edited by este on 08 Jan 2009 - 16:39
I understand it both ways... and of course Microsoft will go with different versions so they can make more money/cater to users needs, etc.. so whatever...
Aye, there are reasons on both side - but again, it's not as simple as the end user choosing not to install parts of the product.
If I am not going to use Media Center, why am I going to pay for it, then not use it? Essentially the end user is subsidising the development costs for something they don't want.
In a way, there is just one release, but you enter a different key to choose what stuff gets installed. More stuff costs more.
I understand it both ways... and of course Microsoft will go with different versions so they can make more money/cater to users needs, etc.. so whatever...
Lets look at windows in a very simplistic way to illustrate the point. Windows 8 contains four features... media centre, premium games, domain facilities and whole disk encryption. Each of those feaures costs Microsoft £250,000 to develop.
If Microsoft just releases a single version of windows, then a quarter of the price they pay (whatever that migtht be) is paying for each of those 4 features. Microsoft will charge £100 for Windows 8 which contains all 4 features.
But hang on, Joe Bloggs as a home user realises that half of the cost he pays is for two features he doesn't need and will never use. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Home" edition at a price of £50 with no business features.
Then theres Mr. Busi N. Essman working for Acme Corp. He suddenly reaslised that half the cost hes paying is for two features that have absolitely no business benefit to the company. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Business" edition at a price of £50 with no "entertainment" features.
Then finally you've got Mr. E Leet whos a power home user who lives at the forefront of technology. He runs a Windows Server at home so wants to connect to a domain and also uses games and media centre. Neither of the above two editions are suitable for him as he wants features from both.
Does this case not justify an "Ultimate" edition at a cost of £100 too?
Just my $0.02.
I understand it both ways... and of course Microsoft will go with different versions so they can make more money/cater to users needs, etc.. so whatever...
Lets look at windows in a very simplistic way to illustrate the point. Windows 8 contains four features... media centre, premium games, domain facilities and whole disk encryption. Each of those feaures costs Microsoft £250,000 to develop.
If Microsoft just releases a single version of windows, then a quarter of the price they pay (whatever that migtht be) is paying for each of those 4 features. Microsoft will charge £100 for Windows 8 which contains all 4 features.
But hang on, Joe Bloggs as a home user realises that half of the cost he pays is for two features he doesn't need and will never use. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Home" edition at a price of £50 with no business features.
Then theres Mr. Busi N. Essman working for Acme Corp. He suddenly reaslised that half the cost hes paying is for two features that have absolitely no business benefit to the company. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Business" edition at a price of £50 with no "entertainment" features.
Then finally you've got Mr. E Leet whos a power home user who lives at the forefront of technology. He runs a Windows Server at home so wants to connect to a domain and also uses games and media centre. Neither of the above two editions are suitable for him as he wants features from both.
Does this case not justify an "Ultimate" edition at a cost of £100 too?
Just my $0.02.
The question is the cost of these different features. These features seem rather expensive. Vista Ultimate retails for around $320. What's in there that's so expensive, and are the costs justified?
I understand it both ways... and of course Microsoft will go with different versions so they can make more money/cater to users needs, etc.. so whatever...
Lets look at windows in a very simplistic way to illustrate the point. Windows 8 contains four features... media centre, premium games, domain facilities and whole disk encryption. Each of those feaures costs Microsoft £250,000 to develop.
If Microsoft just releases a single version of windows, then a quarter of the price they pay (whatever that migtht be) is paying for each of those 4 features. Microsoft will charge £100 for Windows 8 which contains all 4 features.
But hang on, Joe Bloggs as a home user realises that half of the cost he pays is for two features he doesn't need and will never use. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Home" edition at a price of £50 with no business features.
Then theres Mr. Busi N. Essman working for Acme Corp. He suddenly reaslised that half the cost hes paying is for two features that have absolitely no business benefit to the company. "Why am I paying this much money for Windows 8?" he asks.
This justifies a separate "Business" edition at a price of £50 with no "entertainment" features.
Then finally you've got Mr. E Leet whos a power home user who lives at the forefront of technology. He runs a Windows Server at home so wants to connect to a domain and also uses games and media centre. Neither of the above two editions are suitable for him as he wants features from both.
Does this case not justify an "Ultimate" edition at a cost of £100 too?
Just my $0.02.
The question is the cost of these different features. These features seem rather expensive. Vista Ultimate retails for around $320. What's in there that's so expensive, and are the costs justified?
Right - pricing is important here.. perhaps put the price in between 50-100 with mostall features included, so even if the user may not want something at a given point in time, they would still have access to it if ever need be. Or perhaps make some options/addons available as a Windows Update if not included with the disc? I dunno...
On the other hand though, TCLN Ryster's points are 100% valid and im not bashing anything said. This is obviously the reality that will come about.
I just think an approach could be taken from either angle.
But ... whatever... =P
There should be ONE version, with all the features that make the new release NEW, and then marketing should find the RIGHT prices for retail vs. OEM and upgrade vs. new license.
Right now, OEMs spend a fraction of retail, and yet this is where MS makes the vast majority of its money (very few licenses are sold retail).
With Windows 7 proving to be competitive to Windows XP, this is the opportunity for MS to switch EVERYBODY over to the Vista kernel codebase, which benefits the entire computing chain from end-user to support to OEM to MS.
There should be ONE version, with all the features that make the new release NEW, and then marketing should find the RIGHT prices for retail vs. OEM and upgrade vs. new license.
Right now, OEMs spend a fraction of retail, and yet this is where MS makes the vast majority of its money (very few licenses are sold retail).
With Windows 7 proving to be competitive to Windows XP, this is the opportunity for MS to switch EVERYBODY over to the Vista kernel codebase, which benefits the entire computing chain from end-user to support to OEM to MS.
The fact that it's all included on one DVD is irrelevent. It's done that way for convenience and to reduce the cost of producing the DVDs. Remember the DVD is just the distribution method for the product you have purchased, not the actual product itself.
You seem to forget that when you buy software (in this case, Windows). you don't own the data on the DVD. You have bought a license to run the parts of Windows that you have purchased. The fact that the components you haven't purchased are also on the same DVD is completely and utterly irrelevant as they doesn't belong to you. It seems you are unable to grasp this simple concept.
No, you seem unable to grasp that this isn't what I am talking about at all. You keep going off on the MBA 101 line of thinking as if you were a marketing droid defending Microsoft's ADMITTED (since they've now undone the Vista segmentation insanity) mistake.
I'm just taking this to its logical conclusion, which just happens to be the way EVERY OTHER OS VENDOR ON EARTH has always done it. One version. One price. No confusion. No artificial segmentation via forced gimping of the full OS just to slot into tiers.
If every other OS vendor can do it, so can MS.
If every other OS vendor can do it, so can MS.
I think its a bit tricky for Microsoft to do something like this because they know they can make a profit from the 'different versions' of the OS. I'm not defending them but why would they do otherwise if this is the case? I'm sure their team thought out the possibilities both ways.
However - imagine how easy things would be if there was just one release of WINDOWS 7
Er, testers are not there to wonder at the awesomeness of a program. They are there to TEST whatever needs to be tested.
In this case, Home Premium.
The ignorance in your post is mind boggling. All testers got Ultimate. Some got Home Premium as well as Ultimate.
Last edited by LTD on 08 Jan 2009 - 15:31
Apparently so sir. As for the exact names.. not so sure yet.
The images they got where
7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.iso
and
7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.iso
Last edited by neufuse on 08 Jan 2009 - 15:17
For that home premium beta they just change it for HomePremium
Here is the list of available edition: Business, Enterprise, Homebasic, Homepremium, Starter, Ultimate
Before burning the DVD you can either edit that file or just remove it and it will ask you what you want to install
For that home premium beta they just change it for HomePremium
Here is the list of available edition: Business, Enterprise, Homebasic, Homepremium, Starter, Ultimate
Before burning the DVD you can either edit that file or just remove it and it will ask you what you want to install
What's the difference between Starter and Home Basic??
Unless you're in those markets, you're very unlikely to ever see it.
Unless you're in those markets, you're very unlikely to ever see it.
I read the little blurb about Starter. So is it to curb piracy? Because it seems users (many of them perhaps poor or with a lower standard of living) in these "emerging markets" will be denied full access to features with this edition.
They aren't going to have much use for much of them, and may not have powerful enough PCs to run everything.
Gotta say I really don't use much of the Ultimate stuff, I should have stuck with Business to cut the bloat out. Oh well, what can you do. I wanted to see what Ultimate had and I have, now I can make a more informed choice for Win7.
I am excited by the prospect that Win7 will run better on older hardware than Vista did/does.
Use XP
Windows 7 is faster...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.