Microsoft to release six versions of Windows 7

$WaruiKoohii

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:03:26 -0400

KingTengu

SIX VERSIONS!? How insane can Microsoft get, for crying out loud?

The huge majority of people will only have a choice between two.

Some people will go for Pro, but it's not designed for home use.

~KingTengu

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:59:46 -0400

SIX VERSIONS!? How insane can Microsoft get, for crying out loud?

~erdbearchen-x3

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:52:15 -0400

I hope Windows 7 is better then Vista!
Because Vista is slow, full of mistakes and annoying... -_-

$WaruiKoohii

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:00:29 -0400

arokan
And if microsoft do cut the OS up into small pieces like that, then any home basic buyer willl be getting royally screwed, as they'll be missing all the really good features (ie, the only reasons for buying win7)

You do realize that per edition feature wise, Win7 is pretty similar to Windows XP, right?

Windows 7 Home Basic is pretty similar to Windows XP Home, Windows 7 Pro is pretty similar to Windows XP Pro, and Windows 7 Home Premium is pretty similar to Windows XP Media Center Edition.

The Ultimate SKU has no comparison in the XP world, because you couldn't have everything from Pro and everything from MCE in one single release.

~arokan

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:45:10 -0400

Well. I can't really be bothered reading 5 pages of posts (yes, I know, call me lazy. I prefer time-deprived or annoyingly busy though).
The cool thing about win7 is that vista users will not have to pay for the upgrade. New vista machines get a free upgrade to the relevant version of win7. That isnt to say you can go from vista home basic to win7 ultimate, sadly.

And I do agree with bwilhelm, win7 is what vista should have been.
As someone who has used both the beta and RC1 extensivly, I can say that the OS will be worth buying, but not at the HUGELY inflated prices that microsoft charge. (I'm lucky, can get it nice and cheap through work. Turns out that the retail price of an OS is something like 45% inflated from the distribution price.)

Are there enough features to warrant 6 versions? No, not really. And if microsoft do cut the OS up into small pieces like that, then any home basic buyer willl be getting royally screwed, as they'll be missing all the really good features (ie, the only reasons for buying win7)

EDIT: Just found this: http://askbobrankin.com/windows_7_half_price_offer.html
Doesn't sound bad, but I want ultimate, not home basic >.<

$WaruiKoohii

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:41:57 -0400

Counter

I don't think it was what he meant, anyways 7 is released much faster cause of Vista complete fail and it was even confirmed by Microsoft official somewhen

Win7 is supposed to be just faster version of Vista, but it may not be as fast as expected so not everyone will buy Pro/Ultimate ver. as always they leave us choice between Home&Ultimate. Some with little RAM will run basic ver, I'll run Ultimate of cousre xD
Don't know if anyone posted it before - Windows 7 Versions here's something like faq about win7 versions

Um, well, no, not exactly.

If you look at Microsoft OS releases from a traditional standpoint, there is typically about a three year delay between releases.

Vista was the odd man out in that it took six years. Seven was slated to be released three years after Vista even before Vista was released.

~Counter

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:11:21 -0400

toloexpo
Classic example of Microsoft making things too complex. One version with everything is the way to go.

Entirely agreed, they should make two main versions to choose from, like Home & Pro editions for example.

WaruiKoohii
As far as 7 being released because Vista "sucks"...by your logic, Vista was released because XP sucked, XP was released because Windows 2000 sucked, and Windows 2000 was released because NT4 sucked.

I don't think it was what he meant, anyways 7 is released much faster cause of Vista complete fail and it was even confirmed by Microsoft official somewhen

Win7 is supposed to be just faster version of Vista, but it may not be as fast as expected so not everyone will buy Pro/Ultimate ver. as always they leave us choice between Home&Ultimate. Some with little RAM will run basic ver, I'll run Ultimate of cousre xD
Don't know if anyone posted it before - Windows 7 Versions here's something like faq about win7 versions

$WaruiKoohii

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:12:25 -0400

Gvnkwyr
Microsoft is getting more stingy everyday Windows 7, the expected new version of this OS (mostly because Vista sucks), will be, literally, a total mess in most computers: limited to 3 simultaneous applications only? that's insane! text editor, web browser, music player... I can count up to 7 or 8 apps running at the same time in my old laptop with XP Most pc users have access to an original windows thanks to OEM's. But now OEM's will have WIndows 7 starter, and many -if not all of them- will be forced to buy other version of 7 if they are interested in a decent computer performance That's clearly a marketing strategy, and the only think they'll get is a total exodus to Linux, Mac or pirate versions of 7

Delusional much?

The version of 7 that you're talking about, Windows 7 Starter, has been around since the XP days.

7 Starter will only be available from OEM's, preinstalled on netbooks (as an option. Home Premium will also be an option).

In addition, there is no more 3 application limit. Pay attention to current events before bashing a company and their products.

As far as 7 being released because Vista "sucks"...by your logic, Vista was released because XP sucked, XP was released because Windows 2000 sucked, and Windows 2000 was released because NT4 sucked.

Also by your logic, OS X 10.5 was released because 10.4 sucked, and so on, and so forth.

Yes, that logic doesn't work.

As for the "total exodus" to Linux or OS X...wait, wasn't that supposed to happen every year for the past 10 years?

~xTHHxAimiForevr

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:46:10 -0400

Whats Ultimates difference from Vista and how smoothly does it run? Any significant bugs?

~KainXS

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:17:08 -0400

As long as thse six versions of 7 are cheaper than Vista now, I think they will have success with 7 but if not It might fail like vista did, even though 7 is nothing but a tweaked version of vista.

~toloexpo

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:21:30 -0400

Classic example of Microsoft making things too complex. One version with everything is the way to go.

~Youngster

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:46:52 -0400

Hey hey now, Microsoft has a very important message to say for all of you in the video clip below! Microsoft is the Future!

Microsoft's Promise Video Clip

~KainXS

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:12:12 -0400

I hear these windows 7 versions will cost more than vista's 4 or so versions at launch, you guys think its true

~Gvnkwyr

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:30:07 -0400

Microsoft is getting more stingy everyday

Windows 7, the expected new version of this OS (mostly because Vista sucks), will be, literally, a total mess in most computers: limited to 3 simultaneous applications only? that's insane! text editor, web browser, music player... I can count up to 7 or 8 apps running at the same time in my old laptop with XP

Most pc users have access to an original windows thanks to OEM's. But now OEM's will have WIndows 7 starter, and many -if not all of them- will be forced to buy other version of 7 if they are interested in a decent computer performance

That's clearly a marketing strategy, and the only think they'll get is a total exodus to Linux, Mac or pirate versions of 7

~XbanditX1993

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:43:26 -0400

With the right rig windows 7 is better than Vista because it has a great backwards compatiblity feature that is called virtual desktop and it sports alot of other features without eating as much harddrive space as Vista. Plus Windows 7 is faster eats less ram than Vista and eats less of the Cpu's processing power and it isn't as damanding on the graphics card either so overall it is what the Vista should have been. Also every company loves to squeeze as much money as possible out of thier clients look at Apple for instance thier OS might not cost as much, however, the hardware they sell is twice and sometimes three times as expensive as the equivelent hardware that is using windows. Plus with Mac OS you don't get much freedom in what you do just the basics. Everything runs slower on a Mac OS compaired to Windows OS with the equivelent hardware.

~X-Hunter-X

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:00:14 -0400

I think windows 7 is so a fast ver. of vista.The os used less space than vista.nothing is very special