Windows Vista variations confirmed
Microsoft has been
vocal about their renewed
commitment to PC gaming, but just how many variations of the next Windows will there be? At least eight, confirms
TeamXbox, who uncovered a support link on Microsoft's revamped Vista site (which was dead at the time of this writing).
Gamers will want to pick up a copy of Vista Ultimate, which will include a "Game Performance Tweaker" and other offerings targeted at high-end PC users. For more detailed information on each version, check out this earlier Windows IT Pro article.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
zed @ Feb 20th 2006 12:14PM
This seems a bit more complicated than it needs to be. Different boxes with not obviously different products can confuse the customer. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell an all in one that selectively installs the desired settings based on a series of questions that determine the main uses of the computer?
That is unless your buisness plan depends on hoping people pick up versions that are overkill for them because that's the "best" option...
Brian @ Feb 20th 2006 12:16PM
As Engadget readers know, consumers will probably only have 3 versions to choose from: Home, Premium, and Ultimate. Starter is for developing nations. Business and Enterprise are obviously for corporate use. The three "N" versions are only for European nations and simply don't have Windows Media Player built in.
ymmv @ Feb 20th 2006 12:47PM
The three European "N" versions will exist in name only for mosts intents and purposes. MS will have produced a number of copies, you'll be able to order them if you want to, but you won't find them on shop shelves or pre-installed on PCs. There was absolutely no consumer interest in these versions in the past and there won't be in the future.
Leto @ Feb 20th 2006 1:08PM
"Vista" sounds so gay.
Andir @ Feb 20th 2006 1:43PM
If this doesn't sound like the biggest money scam in the world.
"Gamers will want to pick up a copy of Vista Ultimate, which will include a 'Game Performance Tweaker'"
So your only going to include the perf. tweaks on the most expensive version that has more features to decrease overall system performance? If anything, Gamers should be jumping all over the Starter version for less overhead. I guess if Microsoft says, "You must buy this one" People will jump all over it.
Jay @ Feb 20th 2006 1:46PM
Vista... Isn't that the clone of Tiger?
ZephyrXero @ Feb 20th 2006 1:52PM
Vista will probably be the last version of Windows, after MS gets done shooting itself in the foot with this latest incarnation everyone will have already moved on to Linux or Macs...
Captain Obvious @ Feb 20th 2006 2:01PM
Do we REALLY need this many versions of Windows? From a support point of view, it just that many more systems you'll have to know. Can't wait to see the Microsoft certification on THIS ONE.
More than likely, you'll see a lot of people buying the higher end systems (to get all the features), which I'm concerned may cost more now, because they're making a different between high and low end, whereas before it was just a difference between home and business.
I can see there'll be a benefit to anyone purchasing an entry level computer, as it may be cheaper if you just obtain the minimum system. And for some, I'm sure that'll be fine.
But I can also see confusion over which version to purchase. If I buy this, what am I not getting? or what am I getting that I don't need?
It's possible this may give Linux a boost. Businesses may not want to deal with all the different licenses or configurations.
rawker @ Feb 20th 2006 2:14PM
Ok howablut instead of making a what seams to be the most expensive version of windows the " gamer version" make a chearper version that removes some useless features that us gamers never use, and give us a low resource zaping OS
Chris @ Feb 20th 2006 2:19PM
Do any of you read the comments before you post?
And no people will not move to Linux or Macs. Windows will be the 95% market share leader for a long long long time unless OSX gets ported to normal PC use.
Jay @ Feb 20th 2006 2:43PM
OSX on a non-Mac Intel machine will NEVER be that popular, it will be underground and have a very small user base.
I originally wanted an intel mac so I could run windows on it... but more and more I'm thinking about never touching that horrible OS again. They say they have security done with Vista, that it will be as safe as Apple's OS. Yea. Like SP2 put a sudden stop to viruses and the other 'secure' windows versions.
I love Windows. just to laugh at how bad it is. how badly designed both the insides and outsides are, or how much the outsides are copied off Apples original designs. It's a wonderful world lead by one OS, followed by many.
Jago @ Feb 20th 2006 2:51PM
"Vista will probably be the last version of Windows, after MS gets done shooting itself in the foot with this latest incarnation everyone will have already moved on to Linux or Macs..."
Last version of Windows? What was so wrong with XP? NO operating system is perfect but I've had next to no problem with it. The only times I've ever had a BSOD were caused by bad drivers and I can count on one hand those situations.
Plus Chris is right (mostly)...people won't just magically "switch" over to an OS especially when the majority of the software everyone uses is on the PC. Linux, while very stable, is far from being user friendly.
I may actally buy Vista when it comes out b/c I would rather not hassle with trying to get updates...plus after seeing what it can do I think it's actually worth (and my PC is more then ready to run: AMD Dual Core, 2GB RAM, SLI Geforce 7800 GTs.)
Gareth @ Feb 20th 2006 3:05PM
"N" version = North American
"EU" version = European
Alien Xbox @ Feb 20th 2006 3:15PM
Businesses are always slow to adopt new operating systems. Ours is just finally converting over to XP, but we still have NT4/2000 systems around. A study recently found that most business are operating Windows 2000.
The interesting thing about Linux, is that it's slowly making inroads. I've never seriously considered switching from Windows to Linux, but I can see the benefit to Linux for certain applications, such as say, a webserver.
What I am seeing though, is more open source applications appearing in the workplace. We have several now that are pretty cool.
My biggest concern about Windows, other than support of-- is licensing. We spent a lot of money in 2005 licensing Windows and Windows products. Rolling out Office Pro to 500 users is like 250K. Now figure a big company with more users and multiple products, and the numbers add up quickly. It makes you at least consider Linux.
I don't even want to think what this is going to cost. We don't always have the funds to upgrade all systems all the time. Plus there's training costs for, well everybody.
More than likely, we won't seriously consider Vista for another year or two.
We do have the Vista beta, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. Although I have played around with IE7 beta for XP. There's still work to be done on the latter.
ZephyrXero @ Feb 20th 2006 3:20PM
Windows XP was much much better than Win98 (and WinME by default, seeing as it's the undisputed worst OS ever made). It was much more stable, but secure? no... A day doesn't go by that some new virus or worm is reaking havok on the average joe Windows user. So, this next version of Windows claims it will be, but with MS's track record I seriously doubt it. Put that on top of the insane new minimum requirements and crazy number of versions they're planning on releasing... perhaps people will be more willing to try other things out. While I'll admit myself that Desktop Linux isn't perfect yet, it's a hell of a lot better off than it was 5-6 years ago when XP came out. Plus things like Firefox and OpenOffice are showing people just how great open source software can be....it's only natural for them to want an open source operating system at some point too, and MS is providing us with the perfect reason for them to think about it: Pay hundreds of dollars for a new version of Windows that really doesn't offer anything new except a little eye candy, and probably have to upgrade at least one or two components of your PC? or try out this "linux stuff" I've heard so much about.... Then again with the laziness of people, I could also see Apple/OSX taking off, but at least it's half way open source :/ Still, for the most part, gaming is just about the only thing MS still has going for it that's keeping people using Windows, and something tells me that's about to change too ;)
If you think Linux is "hard" then you're behind the times... with the newer distros, like Ubuntu, it's almost just as easy to use as Windows now if you have even the slightest bit of computer know how at all.
Jason @ Feb 20th 2006 3:26PM
It's worth noting that there are 8 versions only if you count the version for developing countries (which we'll never see, just like we don't see WinXP Starter Edition), the versions for volume licensing for businesses, the and the "N" versions that are exactly the same except don't come with Media Player bundled, which will only be sold in Europe to satisfy the European Union's mandate.
In other words, most of us will only ever see, hear about, or care about three whole versions: Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate. If you happen to be the IT manager of a good-sized company, you'll care about Business and Enterprise, but you'll buy those together with new desktops from your OEM suppliers or volume license upgrades from Microsoft directly.
Jago @ Feb 20th 2006 3:50PM
"Still, for the most part, gaming is just about the only thing MS still has going for it that's keeping people using Windows, and something tells me that's about to change too ;)"
Not gonna happen...why? You forget that PC games are developed on PCs. The biggest reason is b/c 3dsmax is a PC-only program and it uasr by the vast majority of the game industry. Developers aren't going to hassle with 2 different computers just so they can use Linux or OSX.
Hey Alex @ Feb 20th 2006 4:52PM
That's still too many versions. Confusion to ensue.
Garth @ Feb 20th 2006 5:47PM
This is good news for the Linux community because Windows Vista will have as many confusing versions as there are Linux distros. :D
Seriously, if Microsoft continues to make Windows, Office and its enterprise level applications confusing and expensive, then it does make one consider at least the possibility of looking into an open source alternative.
Ironically, the Linux community does seem to be steadily gathering around some unified versions, and there's a desire for it. Right now, it looks like Ubuntu is gaining the greatest Linux mindshare. And with GNOME 3.0 and KDE 4.0 in the horizon, things are looking very promising for the community.
Spencer @ Feb 20th 2006 8:59PM
*cough*OS/2*cough*
dotun.o @ Feb 20th 2006 10:20PM
Pointless confusion (or maybe a money-making one). For practicality's sake, just build a stable OS that won't crash as often and is more secure. What do I care about all these features? For me, Windows is just a gateway to apps I want to run; I don't use MS programs for movie, photo, graphics, etc. editing anyway. I only play games on my PC that aren't available on my console. Indeed, I wouldn't even use Windows at home were it not for my family who would be troubled too much to switch to Mac. The last thing I want now is several slightly different options for basically the same OS; why don't they just fuse all or at least most of these functions into very few options?
Nick @ Feb 21st 2006 12:13AM
Notice: Please read this entire post before you reply to any of its contents.
Oh no! We ... we have choices? God, how could this have happened? How could Microsoft give us choices when it comes to the functionality our OS provides? This is terrible. Gates better call up Baghdad Bob to do the damage control on this one.
People will find ANYTHING to complain about when it comes to Microsoft. Did Microsoft shoot your dog or something? There's so much unnecessary hate associated with the name that it's truly ridiculous in every way. If Microsoft released a single version of Vista, people would complain that it was either bloatware or didn't give them enough features. Microsoft gives people choices and they complain it's too complicated. I'm sure if Apple released 10 versions of OSX it would be revolutionary; don't even get me started on Linux distros.
I mean honestly, are you people serious? Too confusing? It's really very, very simple to figure out what version is right for you and you can bet every store will have a product matrix comparing the three versions people will be able to buy in a store. What is so confusing about the choices presented? Let's see if we can break this down into something simple enough for even the most average individuals to follow.
Are you buying Windows for personal use? If yes, you can choose between Home Basic, Home Premium, or Ultimate. Buying the OS for casual PC use such as browsing, email, chat, and monitor-based media playback? Get Home Basic. Want all of that and Media Center support, DVD authoring and ripping, HDTV support, peripheral synchronization, online meetings, network backup, and file sharing functionality? Get Home Premium. Want all of that and heavy gaming, internet media access, and custom themes? Get Ultimate.
If no, you're buying for Business usage so you can choose between Professional, Small Business, and Enterprise. Are you an employee at a company? You're getting Professional. Are you a Small Business owner or manager without an IT staff and need an all-in-one solution? You're getting Small Business. Own a large business or have needs similar to a large business? You're getting Enterprise for your executives and IT workers, other employees get Professional.
How hard is it to follow the above logic? Most users (people who buy their machines in a store) will NEVER have to make that choice in the first place. The ones who do have to make the choice are likely computer literate enough to figure out which is right for them and if they're not you can bet there will be very simple resources to aid them in their decision. Most people will buy Ultimate anyway, even if they don't need it, because people like to satisfy their need for having the best available.
The first poster suggested selling one OS and then letting users go through an install wizard that customized the OS to the user's needs. That's a good idea in theory, but it just doesn't work. Like it or not, the features that you'll find in Ultimate greatly exceed the number you'll find in Home Basic. That means it cost more to develop what makes Ultimate than it did to develop what makes Home Basic. With only one purchase option, it would have to cost at least as much as Ultimate, even if you didn't need all the features.
Moving onto the comment about "holding back" performance tweaks exclusively for Vista Ultimate users; it makes sense to do this. Users of Home Basic are likely going to want a machine that "just works" and won't spend time messing with hidden settings or even exposed ones. Home Premium users may want to "customize" the OS to make it feel more personal, but still are not likely to spend a massive amount of time tweaking their system.
Ultimate, however, is targeted at "power-users" and hardcore gamers who live for tinkering with every setting, even if they have no clue what they're doing. Giving these people an easy interface to alter their system settings that they would otherwise have no clue what to do with reduces mistakes they can make. I love it when some "uber gamer" messes with his registry, damages his machine, has to reinstall because he can't figure out how to undo what he did, and then complains about how much "M$" sucks.
I love the comments about how Vista is a clone of OSX and how Vista has no new features that make it worth the upgrade. Why do I love these comments? Well, they provide proof that the individuals making them have no idea what they're talking about. People complained that Microsoft didn't have a pretty enough user interface so they work on it and now they're copying Apple. No, they're not meeting consumer demand, why would they do that? They're obviously copying Apple and hoping nobody will notice!
They've worked on designing an underlying engine to make a better user interface and in turn create a better user experience. It is an evolutionary change that was needed, simple as that. Microsoft has a lot of people working for them who do usability studies, focus on aesthetics and design, and do a lot of research regarding user experience. Maybe it's true that they have more of a focus on it now than in the past as a reaction to Apple, but that doesn't mean they step through Apple's products and copy every concept.
As far as Vista features go, there are plenty of new features under the hood that are evolutionary and revolutionary. Some features you probably haven't even heard about are the new printing technologies and typeface technologies going into Vista, they are quite remarkable. Printing is exponentially faster with better quality and ClearType has progressed beautifully with not only new Latin fonts but the Japanese fonts are amazing and the problems they solve for typographers are truly great.
I know, two "little" features like that aren't a reason to move to Vista, I was simply trying to illustrate that there are a lot of changes happening that you don't even see press about. For some bigger ticket items, there are many. Much improved integrated security (bi-directional firewall, anti-spyware, etc), new shell, new UI foundation, great Parental Controls (many parents care about this), integrated DVD authoring and ripping, improved Outlook Express (now Windows Mail), full volume encryption, NAS backup capabilities, tons of new Tablet PC functionality, redesign of driver model (gets rid of driver-related BSODs), and so many more changes under the surface that you'll probably never know about until you or somebody you know experiences them.
For the amount a lot of these features improve productivity and reliability, for me the price of upgrading is worth it for what will be gained. One thing that everybody seems to harp on is how Vista includes a better firewall and anti-spyware. I can't even count how many alternate OS users have used this to "prove" how insecure Windows is compared to other OSs. So again, Microsoft is in a catch 22 simply because of their company name. If they don't include security software, people say their products are insecure; if they do include security software, people still say it's insecure.
One thing you will notice that isn't included in Vista is an anti-virus package. Microsoft's new anti-virus solution is subscription based and not included in Home versions of Vista. This is yet another double edged sword for Microsoft. If they don't include anti-virus in Vista and sell it separately, they're evil and trying to bully their customers by "selling them an insecure OS" that requires anti-virus. However, if they include anti-virus, they're hit with a class action lawsuit by anti-virus makers claiming that Microsoft is being monopolistic; in turn, everybody calls Microsoft an evil monopoly.
The reason I even mention the contents of the above two paragraphs is because someone is bound to bring them up eventually. So those are out of the way.
Something that confuses me is that people seem to be making a distinction between the versions as high-end and low-end PCs. When I look at the Vista version plan it seems more like a functionality / necessity segregation to me. The only version targeted at low-end PCs will be Vista Starter and that's only going to be seen in developing countries, the US, Europe, Japan, etc won't see these versions available for purchase. As far as requiring a high-end PC for all the other versions of Vista, that's another detail people are really blowing out of proportion.
For the 3D interface, you need a video card with pixel shader 2.0 support, so that's any card after 2002. Video card older than 2002 or have an integrated solution? There's a 2D variant of the UI that you can enable that gets rid of the "high" graphical requirements. Currently, it's recommended that you have 512MB of RAM for the best performance. Remember, that's not what's needed solely for the OS but for the OS and a smattering of applications running. The minimum requirement to run the OS and have decent application performance is 256MB - many machines ship with at least this.
Another curiously popular belief / comment is that Vista's release will some how cause people to move over to Linux or Mac machines simply because figuring out which version is right for them is "too hard." Besides having the difficulty of selection argument torn apart up above, many people forget that a lot of the applications people use only run on Windows. It's easy to say that there are open source alternatives but where does that leave all the work they've done up to this point with those programs? Programs that are cross-platform sometimes require a new license for the other platform, that's additional cost when they could use Windows and all of their old programs work "for free."
Many open source applications have progressed greatly over time, but most of them are still slower and use more memory than their closed source counterparts. Open up IE7 beta a compare its memory usage with Firefox 1.5.0.1 after visiting about 10 pages across 10 tabs. IE7, even in beta, uses less than a final build of Firefox. OpenOffice has been shown to process data slower and use a lot more memory than Office 2003, there was quite a large comparison article on the web a few months back. Whatever memory you save by not using "bloated Windows" gets taken away by using bloated freeware.
Touching back on security for a moment, since that seems to be the focal point of bashing Windows in most cases, they've not only added prevention systems but they've taken a new approach to user permissions. If it's going to execute on your hardware, you've pretty much got to authorize Vista to execute it. Even changing settings requires you to authorize the OS to make the changes. Basically, administrator powers are no longer "always on" in your account so you have control over when administrative actions occur.
Throughout my little (ok, big) rant, I included a few links. First, my apologies if they got totally butchered; I attempted to use HTML links so I could link my text instead of having some long URL laying in them middle of a sentence. Ever since Joystiq "upgraded" their comment system, I've noticed nothing but problems with links in comments and they also removed the Preview feature - no idea who made that call. So in short, I have no clue what the links will look like until I'm unable to edit them.
The links are to some videos that you may or may not find interesting. I linked to video interviews with: a user experience designer, the printing technologies team, and the ClearType team. They're mostly discussion and at times technical, but you do get a few glimpses of what I'm referring to in various parts of the rant. These are far from the only videos about Vista and I think people should take some time to check out some of the other cool stuff going on with the various product teams, maybe some insight will do all those who claim, "Vista has nothing new," some good.
Here are some others I enjoyed; these are more visual than the others I linked:
- Vista Sidebar and Gadgets: xttp://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=128231
- Vista Shell Team: xttp://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=114710
- Vista 3D UI: xttp://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=114694
Other Vista related videos can be found here - xttp://channel9.msdn.com/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=14&TagID=9
Be sure to change "xttp" to "http" for the above links to work. Instead of Joystiq only auto-converting three URLs, you simply can't put more than 3 even if they are plain text instead of an active link. Man I wish Joystiq would revamp their comment system.
To conclude my long, long, long rant, I'll just say that before you talk about something you should at least try and get some insight into it first. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that everything I said above is 100% accurate, but I have taken the time to familiarize myself with Vista. If you don't have facts, restrain yourself from making knee-jerk reactions.
I welcome comments on my post, as long as people take the time to read what I said in full first. If you don't want to dedicate the time to read what I wrote (and it will be obvious if you didn't), then don't dedicate the time to write some off-the-wall comment about it.
Nick
Nick @ Feb 21st 2006 12:24AM
Now that's hilarious. Instead of handling my proper HTML links, the beautiful comment system stripped them out and turned four, not just three, of my plain text URLs into active links. That's just wonderful guys.
So, to supplement my post, here are the links and the strings they went to:
- "focus on aesthetics and design" : http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=161254
- "printing technologies" : http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=137532
- "typeface technologies" : http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=146749
You'll still have to fix the other links at the end with the "xttp" instead of "http" by hand. I tried to exempt them from auto linking so it would be less of a pain, but the comment system would have none of that!
Nick
Sydney Carton @ Feb 21st 2006 1:55AM
The crux of the biscuit is that you shouldn't have to replace drivers or pick from eight million versions to get good performance. Typical Microsoft, setting up a moneytrap like this. People shouldn't have to get a special version of Vista for "game enhancement". Said performance boosts should be standard in ALL versions of Vista. Anyway, after working tech support through college, and getting totally burnt out on tweaking and configuring and editing registries, I traded in my PC for a Mac, which I love playing the Mac versions of my old DOS games on. Might not be mac versions of too many new games, but boy is OSX beautifully backwards compatible.
Anyway, I don't envy the poor suckers who are going to get to support eight million slightly different versions of Vista and their eight million slightly different bug updates. Good God.
ZephyrXero @ Feb 21st 2006 2:09PM
Nick, it's nice to know that MS has paid employees reading and commenting, good job guys!
Nick @ Feb 21st 2006 3:12PM
So if you're not a Linux or Mac zealot, you must be a Microsoft employee? Well, obviously, since nobody but an employee of Microsoft could like and understand the Windows platform, right? That's quite logical on your part, Zephyr. It's nice to know RedHat has paid employees skimming and making useless comments. Good job guys! You should link to your homepage, www.redhat.com, instead of Ubuntu; you could be fired!
If you clicked the link my name goes to, you would realize that an MS employee wouldn't be allowed to work on such a project, let alone be the lead for it. Maybe your future posts could contain less ad hominem-like attacks and more useful content.
Nick
ZephyrXero @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:11AM
Jeez...take a joke buddy ;)