Windows 7

[Plaupius]

Timmah! said:

Avalach21 said:

__XBrawlX__ said:

Timmah! said:

Username2324 said:

Mudface said:

Username2324 said:

I would have agreed if they had ditched the dumb Semi-Basic, Basic, Premium, Semi Ultimate, Ultimate, and Professional version scheme.

Even though Apple releases a new updated OS every year for $100, atleast every version is the same.

 

Apple doesn't have to cater for the same range of people.

 

There should be two options, Ultimate and Professional, why should people get ripped off feature wise unless they pony up $200 for a semi-complete Windows, or $300 for a complete Windows?

What's different between Windows Vista Premium and Ultimate? "Simple internet connectivity"........ $100 so you can 'easily' connect to the internet.... Thats just freaking ridiculous, and Microsoft wonders why people hate them, they half-ass everything they do simply because they can.

 

You clearly don't know anything when it comes to the different versions of Windows. They boil down to choice, and each has it's uses and benefits.

Home basic is just the simple features for basic use, nothing fancy. Good for the average user with basic computing performance.

Home premium adds extra multimedia functions for the more avid user, along with Windows Aero for better a slicker looking interface. Good for the home enthusiast with more computing power.

 

Vista business keeps Aero, loses the extra multimedia features of Home Premium, but adds the ability to interface correctly with a Windows Domain, good for a business where you need business features, but do not need the added multimedia capabilities that are more for home use.

Ultimate includes all the features of Home Premium, as well as the business features of Vista Business. This is for the true enthusiast only, such as somebody who has a Windows Domain at their home, or a business owner who wants all the multimedia features in addition to being able to connect to his business network using Active Directory domain services.

And for your information, ALL versions of Vista include the 'Easier network connectivity' feature. Thanks for playing.

There is nothing wrong with being able to choose which version you want, and if you purchase a PC with the version you want already installed (OEM), the price difference is not really that bad. It's best not to open your mouth if you're ignorant.

Here's a link in case you would like to actually LEARN something instead of talking out of your ass.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx

EDIT: AND, you can find Ultimate legally (and very easily) for under $200. Again, you don't know anything about what you're knocking here, so PLEASE educate yourself before you look foolish again.

http://www.viosoftware.com/Windows+Vista+Ultimate/Windows+Vista+Ultimate+SP1+OEM+DVD+32+bit.html

Username just got owned :)

 

 

I'm not sure he really did.  While I agree it's not a big deal there are different versions, I don't get why there even needs to be?  When they're buring a DVD, it costs the same whether they put Windows Basic or Ultimate or Business or whatever on it.  They also already sunk the R & D into all of the windows features they have developed.

So why not just have Windows 7 (which would be the ultimate version) which includes all the multimedia and all of the business options.  Then if your a casual user, you don't use the multimedia options or business options, but if you become more "avid" at some point, they are there for you.  If you're a business user and don't want the multimedia features, then they are there if you want them, but you don't need to use them.

There's no reason to cut features out of versions, especially when it doesn't even reduce the production cost in anyway.  Just put all of the features in every version.

The opposite argument can also be made: Somebody who is not very computer savvy and does not want or need the additional features sees this from a very different perspective. They would have to pay, say, $250 for all features if there were only one version of Vista. Their argument would then be that they're paying for features they will never use. I think choice is a great thing in this, and since anybody can easily find the ultimate version for a very reasonable price (about $200), there's really no problem here.

The biggest problem with your argument is that it comes only from your perspective. The average consumer is not an enthusiast and actually sees value in getting a cheaper, more basic version of the software. In fact, I will most likely purchase the basic version of Windows 7 for my internet PC downstairs, and get Ultimate for my home theater PC upstairs. I like having the option to pick which version I want.

Also, Apple can charge so little for a new OS because, for one, they release them much quicker than MS, and they also make money off the hardware they sell (this is part of the overall cost of owning a MAC, they offset their R&D costs on software by making a killing off their overpriced hardware). MS cannot do the same thing, they ONLY make money off their software and do not have the luxury of offsetting their R&D costs by any means other than software sales. In addition, MS has to spend much more on R&D because they have to run on all available hardware, apple only runs on their own proprietary hardware, making R&D cheaper. They are two very different companies.

 

Somebody who is not computer savvy is going to be extremely confused by the number of different Windows versions. How could my mother (if she ever were to buy a computer) know which version she would have to get? Your assumption works if you really know what you need, and what the differences between the versions are.

So IMO, the one-edition way is simpler for the less savvy as they can't get the wrong version and don't have to worry about it, and for the power users it is a great deal bacause they get all the features for the same price. By the way, if you can easily get the ultimate version for 200$, how come the one-edition would cost more than that? In many cases I do believe that choice is good, but this kind of choice is totally artificial, and seeing how much profit MS makes one could argue that their software is overpriced. I'm not arguing that, however, as people pay the price and generally get what they expect: if it were not so, then the company would not be here today. Same goes for Apple: people are paying the price and think what they get is worth it, hence no overpricing.