4 ms·

Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise? If Windows 7 Ultimate is the same thing sa Windo

Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise? If Windows 7 Ultimate is the same thing sa Windows 7 Enterprise? Why the distinction? Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home". 99% of people (including work people) use their computers for checking their email, surfing the internet, using office, and playing media - this is why other companies (Google, Apple) are kicking ass and stealing MS's "home" customers. The pervasive MS integration with everything is MS's only defense on the corporate enterprise. Their advantage in the home market is eroding. People just don't need to buy PC's any more.

freehunter 15y ago
>Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise? Windows Enterprise is volume licensed. Windows Professional is individually licensed. Enterprise also has BitLocker and UNIX support. Again, I don't see where the confusion should lie for the user. Consumers shouldn't even be aware that Enterprise exists, or that there are differences. No consumer is ever going to even have the chance to purchase Enterprise. >Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home". Not true. Windows 95 had a couple editions. The two consumer-facing editions were Windows 95 and Microsoft PLUS! for Windows 95. There were a handful of other versions that were only sold preinstalled on computers. Fun fact, if you bought "Windows 95", you didn't get USB support. Only available in Windows 95b aka Windows 95 OSR2.1 Windows XP had a Starter edition for emerging markets. It had Media Center Edition which featured a new interface and WMC (along with DVR support). Tablet PC edition included touch screen software. There was also 64-bit edition, which may as well have been its own OS, since 64-bit support was not fully realized by all the existing software and drivers. That fact that you didn't know these other editions existed goes to show you're blowing the whole thing out of the water for Windows 7. The point of their existence is to provide for what you are alluding to as the "other 1%" (which is actually a much, much larger percent and makes Microsoft a huge amount of money). The niche cases and the business requirements are satisfied with the niche Windows products and the business-oriented Windows products. Apple and Google have no presence in the corporate OS world because they offer nothing to compete. "One size fits all" generally doesn't, and there's money to be made outside of that.
- jcheng 15y ago
  Microsoft makes decisions like this ALL the time, ones that 1) appear ridiculous to the casual observer; 2) turn out to actually be rational if you think very hard about it and have enough background information (which is almost never available to anyone but MS employees); and too often, 3) in the end have unforeseen consequences that make Microsoft end up looking foolish or incompetent. Every day when I worked at Microsoft another "look how stupid MS is" story would come out, and there would invariably be a large thread on the internal mailing list about it. The first 50 posts would be by people saying "You idiots in division X, this was a stupid idea and anybody could have told you that for the following 6 obvious reasons!" Then the folks from the responsible division would reply to each post to explain why they did what they did. And almost without fail these turned out to be decisions made by smart people who had very defensible reasons for doing what they did. In the end I think what frustrated me most was that there was nobody at the top, no Steve Jobs, to say, "I get that you've done a lot of detailed analysis on why having 14 editions of Windows is a good idea, but I'm the boss, and this feels wrong, and we're not doing it."
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Well there is a reason Apple is great at Apple stuff and Microsoft is great at Microsoft stuff. I wouldn't have it any other way. The true problem is that the media/forums pick up on MS news and run the controversy without actually thinking. It gets page views and upvotes, why stop? MS bashing is the tabloid news of the tech world. Doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time, but damn is it a hot seller.
    - r00fus 15y ago
      You're correct that brand proliferation is a Microsoft problem (actually Cisco is a bigger offender here - but they don't sell directly to consumers all that much). But it's not like they have to be like this. Make the business brands profligate and ensure the consumer brands are simple and to the point, and cut out weak brands (mac.com? me.com? all getting thrown away).
ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
"Why does it have to be like this?" So Microsoft can make money off of everyone. Would you want to charge a multi-billion dollar corporation with 12,000 employees the same price for your operating system as you would charge a 50 year old baby boomer who just wants to check email? You want to make as much money as you can from each demographic so you add features to that demographic's branded version and milk them. The poor pay a little, the rich pay a lot, and everyone ends up with a copy of windows. It's what kept Windows at 80-90% market share. Of course, in the short term it worked great, but in the long term it might begin to backfire as consumers move on to less confusing brands with less hardware options, more quality, less affordability, more prestige. At every meetup I attend, I see macs all over the place with me being the only Windows user. Apple has gained a lot of ground in just 10 years. The user experience, the hardware, and Microsoft's short term decision making.

freehunter 15y ago

>Why does it have to be like this? Why the distinction between Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise? Windows Enterprise is volume licensed. Windows Professional is individually licensed. Enterprise also has BitLocker and UNIX support. Again, I don't see where the confusion should lie for the user. Consumers shouldn't even be aware that Enterprise exists, or that there are differences. No consumer is ever going to even have the chance to purchase Enterprise. >Window 95 was just...windows 95. Windows XP was simply "professional" and "home". Not true. Windows 95 had a couple editions. The two consumer-facing editions were Windows 95 and Microsoft PLUS! for Windows 95. There were a handful of other versions that were only sold preinstalled on computers. Fun fact, if you bought "Windows 95", you didn't get USB support. Only available in Windows 95b aka Windows 95 OSR2.1 Windows XP had a Starter edition for emerging markets. It had Media Center Edition which featured a new interface and WMC (along with DVR support). Tablet PC edition included touch screen software. There was also 64-bit edition, which may as well have been its own OS, since 64-bit support was not fully realized by all the existing software and drivers. That fact that you didn't know these other editions existed goes to show you're blowing the whole thing out of the water for Windows 7. The point of their existence is to provide for what you are alluding to as the "other 1%" (which is actually a much, much larger percent and makes Microsoft a huge amount of money). The niche cases and the business requirements are satisfied with the niche Windows products and the business-oriented Windows products. Apple and Google have no presence in the corporate OS world because they offer nothing to compete. "One size fits all" generally doesn't, and there's money to be made outside of that.

jcheng 15y ago
Microsoft makes decisions like this ALL the time, ones that 1) appear ridiculous to the casual observer; 2) turn out to actually be rational if you think very hard about it and have enough background information (which is almost never available to anyone but MS employees); and too often, 3) in the end have unforeseen consequences that make Microsoft end up looking foolish or incompetent. Every day when I worked at Microsoft another "look how stupid MS is" story would come out, and there would invariably be a large thread on the internal mailing list about it. The first 50 posts would be by people saying "You idiots in division X, this was a stupid idea and anybody could have told you that for the following 6 obvious reasons!" Then the folks from the responsible division would reply to each post to explain why they did what they did. And almost without fail these turned out to be decisions made by smart people who had very defensible reasons for doing what they did. In the end I think what frustrated me most was that there was nobody at the top, no Steve Jobs, to say, "I get that you've done a lot of detailed analysis on why having 14 editions of Windows is a good idea, but I'm the boss, and this feels wrong, and we're not doing it."
- freehunter 15y ago
  Well there is a reason Apple is great at Apple stuff and Microsoft is great at Microsoft stuff. I wouldn't have it any other way. The true problem is that the media/forums pick up on MS news and run the controversy without actually thinking. It gets page views and upvotes, why stop? MS bashing is the tabloid news of the tech world. Doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time, but damn is it a hot seller.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    You're correct that brand proliferation is a Microsoft problem (actually Cisco is a bigger offender here - but they don't sell directly to consumers all that much). But it's not like they have to be like this. Make the business brands profligate and ensure the consumer brands are simple and to the point, and cut out weak brands (mac.com? me.com? all getting thrown away).

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago

"Why does it have to be like this?" So Microsoft can make money off of everyone. Would you want to charge a multi-billion dollar corporation with 12,000 employees the same price for your operating system as you would charge a 50 year old baby boomer who just wants to check email? You want to make as much money as you can from each demographic so you add features to that demographic's branded version and milk them. The poor pay a little, the rich pay a lot, and everyone ends up with a copy of windows. It's what kept Windows at 80-90% market share. Of course, in the short term it worked great, but in the long term it might begin to backfire as consumers move on to less confusing brands with less hardware options, more quality, less affordability, more prestige. At every meetup I attend, I see macs all over the place with me being the only Windows user. Apple has gained a lot of ground in just 10 years. The user experience, the hardware, and Microsoft's short term decision making.