Log in

View Full Version : Windows Vista Version Information Released


Jason Dunn
09-12-2005, 05:40 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/47665/windowspaulthurrott_47665.html' target='_blank'>http://www.windowsitpro.com/windows...rott_47665.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Two days before the start of Professional Developers Conference (PDC) 2005, I've received exclusive insider information about the product editions, or SKUs, which Microsoft intends to create for Windows Vista (codenamed Longhorn). While the exact breakdown of the Windows Vista editions has been the subject of much speculation, this list closely matches the editions list I first published on the SuperSite for Windows last year. Here's how the Windows Vista product editions break down. There will be two general categories of Windows Vista editions, which map closely to the two that exist today for XP ("Home," which comprises Starter, Home, and Media Center Editions, Pro, which includes Professional, Professional x64, and Tablet PC Editions). In Windows Vista, the two categories are Home and Business. In the Home category, Microsoft will create four product editions: Windows Vista Starter Edition, Windows Vista Home Basic Edition, Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, and Windows Vista Ultimate Edition (previously known as "Uber" Edition). In the Business category, there will are three editions: Windows Vista Small Business Edition, Windows Vista Professional Edition, and Windows Vista Enterprise Edition. In all, there are 7 product editions planned for Windows Vista."</i><br /><br />That's a whole lotta' Vista! 8O Windows Vista Home Premium Edition sounds like it would be the best for most people, then I noticed that it was missing Remote Desktop, which I use a fair bit. So, unsurprisingly, the Ultimate Edition is what I'll likely go for. I'll be curious to see how the price points work, especially in relation to multiple licenses in the home. If Microsoft doesn't come up with a plan similar to Apple's "five home licenses for $199 USD" offering, I predict Vista will have a very hard time getting into homes that are already running XP on multiple computers. It's just too expensive to ask the average family to drop $800 on getting five new copies of Vista.<br /><br />I found the inclusion of "DVD ripping" in the Vista Home Premium Edition downright shocking - how can they possibly get past the DCMA which states that any software that cracks the DeCSS encryption on DVDs is illegal? Has Microsoft found some loophole, or have they managed to come to some agreement with the major movie studios? Even if they did, surely they can't flaunt the law as it stands on the books now. This is fantastic news if true, because it would allow consumers to get content from their DVDs onto their video players. I've tried many different DVD rippers, and they've all been too esoteric and/or unreliable for me to use regularly.

Phronetix
09-12-2005, 06:26 AM
The average family won't need five copies though. Your set-up excluded of course! :mrgreen:

Jason, any news on the apparent large amounts of video RAM needed to run Vista? I hear 512Mb being needed, or is that sensationalist banter?

For 512Mb I'd wanna be able to lick AND taste the interface.

I'm looking forward to the Vista versus Leopard banter. The five editions seems a bit ambitious for a product delayed literally six or seven times. I suppose the Vista Lite versions may be taylored to older hardware. It would suck to get a new system this Xmas then find out you have to upgrade the v-card just to be able to use the new OS.

ctmagnus
09-12-2005, 06:43 AM
I've heard that current high-end video cards (ie, 128 MB video RAM) should be able to handle it. But I haven't done too much research into the issue.

saru83
09-12-2005, 07:32 AM
7 Editions?!!? kinda weird, but its a good indication that they r trying to satisfy consumer needs. I’ll go for the Ultimate :wink:

ADBrown
09-12-2005, 08:33 AM
Ten bucks says that their "DVD ripping" feature actually means "copy to low-quality, DRMed, encrypted up the *** WMV file that self-destructs after one viewing."

In any event, I'm not buying. It took me years to find a Microsoft OS that works: I'm never giving up XP. Besides which, the prices and hardware requirement involved are absolutely scandelous. Microsoft's just trying to jumpstart PC upgrades so that they can start shipping OSes again.

Andy Whiteford
09-12-2005, 10:07 AM
Current vid cards will be fine, there is a very rich UI on offer but it is very customisable and you can turn off the majority of effects to assist with performance.

mr_Ray
09-12-2005, 12:25 PM
7 editions sounds a lot, but it's not really.

Starter edition - only sold in emerging price-is-of-utmost-importance markets such as China. So we're down to 6.

Then halve that - 3 each for home and business.

Business - the basic level one will do for the basic desktops. The small business version includes several technologies that in a larger organisation would be dealth with seperately - eg volume shadow copy, backups, etc. For the workstation class there's the Enterprise Edition including things like hardware virtualisation, etc. Nice clear distinctions.

Home again has 3 classes - basic for low cost, premium that includes all the great media-centric and tablet-PC stuff. Ultimate is for the real enthusiast or just plain rich people who want the Home Premium goodies while not giving up on the pro features such as remote desktop, IIS, etc.

Bear in mind that 95%+ of people don't buy an OS, just get a PC with one included, and there's really not going to be any problems, just more choice.

gt24
09-12-2005, 01:21 PM
Here is the thing I don't like... XP Professional already costs quite a bit of money. $229.95 obtains you XP Pro, $199.95 for XP Pro upgrade, or $146.95 for OEM (at your internet Newegg store).

However, at brick and motor stores I have seen Pro go for around $300 and Home for $200. Now we have two versions of Home and an Ultimate edition. Considering all the features Ultimate has (it shall include special music downloads, file downloads, just a ton of other features than the OS), I think the higher version of Home will cost the same as XP Pro leaving Ultimate edition to... REALLY cost a ton.

I suppose we shall see... but the one thing I find the most annoying about a computer is when I try to run some sort of cool utility on XP only to find that XP Home doesn't support it! That is why I like having XP Pro at home...

It would be annoying to have a crippled version of Vista in the future due to the fact that the Uber edition would be insanely priced. Also, consider that Vista will require computer upgrades (IE, new machines for normal users) and I doubt that the version of Windows that comes on those machines will be anything but Vista Home Basic... Sheesh, most likely you would need an Alienware to find an OEM Uber edition...

When all else fails, XP works for me... for now.... I REALLY hope I am still in college when this releases though, so I can get a student discount... :devilboy:

Here is one more thing to think about... the consumer Vistas are what most people want, IE people who are not in a business... yet you NEED a business edition (the Professional edition) to do some critical things...

(source http://neowin.net/comments.php?category=main&amp;id=30353 )

Windows Vista Professional Edition

* Aimed at the business consumer
* Can join domain, has IIS web server
* Akin to XP Pro

Hmmm... this version is similar to XP Pro... this version is the FIRST one that can join a domain? Doesn't this sound like the consumer version will have simple file sharing only, and all those other fun limited networking capabilities? I'm not running a domain but I still find this something interesting to look into. I certainly want to see what I will be missing first!

Windows Vista Home Basic Edition

* Equivalent to XP Home
* Includes firewall, parental controls, Security Center, Movie Maker, Photo Library and more
* For first time buyer / budget conscious

Windows Vista Home Premium Edition

* Everything from Vista Home Basic
* Adds DVD video authoring, HDTV support, DVD ripping support
* Similar to current XP Media Center edition but with added features

Ok... so Home Premium is essentially Home edition with Media Center Edition addons... oh Goodie! I kinda wanted more than those features... but those features will be nice. In leau of something like full control over networking, I'm not as happy though...

Windows Vista Small Business Edition

* Designed for small businesses without IT staff
* Backup and Shadow Copy support, Castle and server-join networking, and PC fax and scanning utility
* Pre-paid access to the Windows Live! Small Business or Microsoft Office Live! subscription services

Ok, it takes Small Business edition TO SEND A FAX? True, I don't need to send faxes from Windows... but for those who like to use that feature.... I bet they will be tickled pink by this fact... Besides, the business edition WON'T have the features of the consumer edition... so no fun media stuff on this branch... Either I have fun, or I work, not both (at least, not until the Uber edition). NOTE that the Uber edition will NOT have Fax capability, since it will only have the features of Professional, NOT Small Business Edition... so I suppose if you really like Faxing that you might need a 3rd party utility...

Windows Vista Ultimate Edition

* "The best operating system ever offered for a personal PC"
* Superset of both Vista Home Premium and Vista Pro Edition
* Podcasting application, Game Performance Tweaker, possible free music/movie downloads

So, in order to game efficiently (IE, have performance tweaks), in order to have nothing disabled (well, have most stuff not disabled...), you need the Uber edition... which as you can tell by the possible free music/movie downloads... this version will cost a TON! I didn't mind, so much, having a Home and Pro edition... although it made technical support annoying. However, as more versions come out, I will still need the top edition... and the top edition will cost a TON more than the previous version's top dog. THAT is what I find annoying and that is what will make me hesistate to upgrade. I will wait for full reviews of the different versions before I make a decision (I certainly won't be the first to dive in) but somehow I think I will find anything other than Uber as a crippled OS...

One last note... the Uber is all the features of the consumer and BUSINESS branch. When have you known a business OS to sell for cheap? True, Professional isn't really a server OS and there isn't really anything like Uber edition... From Newegg, Windows 2003 Web Edition (lowest version) OEM style is $379.95... so it might be an indicator of a worst case scenario here... Uber might push $400, considering that it is a Business and Consumer OS in one with free music and movies to boot, an ultimate operating system that the world has never seen the likes of!! Blah... maybe I'm just not enthused about Vista anymore...

Jason Dunn
09-12-2005, 05:41 PM
The average family won't need five copies though. Your set-up excluded of course! :mrgreen:

Five? No. But two or three? Very possible - and one of them is likely to be a laptop.

Jason, any news on the apparent large amounts of video RAM needed to run Vista? I hear 512Mb being needed, or is that sensationalist banter?

Pure FUD. To have the maxed out, ultra-cool Aero interface you need a DirectX 9 capable video card with 128 MB of RAM. If you lack a modern video card, in the worst case scenario is that you run with the same graphical UI as you have in XP now. Or you can go back to the retro Windows 9x interface if you wish. It's no different than XP in this regard, there's just more headroom for high-end graphics.

Any computer that can run XP will run Vista with essentially the same user experience - which is why the pricing issue on the OS is important.

gibson042
09-12-2005, 06:17 PM
:soapbox:
I am still happily running Windows 2000, because in my opinion all XP really added was some UI bloat—bundling in features that are done better and more efficiently by free/open source software anyway—at the expense of privacy and control of one's computer(s). I will continue to run Windows 2000 until it is no longer viable, at which point I will probably switch over to Gentoo or Ubuntu Linux, or maybe even the x86 version OS X. Certainly not Vista, though... never again will I buy a Microsoft desktop OS. Six crippled versions and one extreme pocketbook-drainer, all of which recommend a new video card and all of which won't play full resolution protected video unless you have a monitor that doesn't even exist yet? No thanks.
:deal: :bangin:

I don't think I'm alone, either. All of the compelling features of Vista have either been removed or postponed or backported (not that they were ever enough to counteract the draconian DRM, but at least there was something interesting going on). People who buy new computers probably won't have a choice, but what incentive does anyone have to upgrade their current system?

Paragon
09-12-2005, 06:18 PM
The average family won't need five copies though. Your set-up excluded of course! :mrgreen:

Five? No. But two or three? Very possible - and one of them is likely to be a laptop.

To be totally honest I can't see me dropping about a grand in Canadian funds to upgrade 3 desktops and a laptop. First off for the laptop, I think before I spend multi-hundreds on a new OS I'll buy a new laptop. Our laptop is fairly low end, so why spend big bucks on an OS. It comes down to upgrading one at most.

I have a feeling this may be the case for many households. XP has been very solid, and does what most households demand of it. The need to upgrade is not as great as it was in older versions. We may have more computers in our houses now, but they don't all need to be upgraded.

Dave

Jason Dunn
09-12-2005, 07:11 PM
I have a feeling this may be the case for many households. XP has been very solid, and does what most households demand of it. The need to upgrade is not as great as it was in older versions. We may have more computers in our houses now, but they don't all need to be upgraded.

And that's EXACTLY what the barrier to adoption will be for Vista - not most of the complains raised in this thread, it will be the cost and the fact that XP is still a pretty good OS and the advantages of Vista will need to be VERY obvious to consumers along with a reasonable price for the upgrade.

Ed Hansberry
09-12-2005, 07:51 PM
:soapbox:
I am still happily running Windows 2000, because in my opinion all XP really added was some UI bloat—bundling in features that are done better and more efficiently by free/open source software anyway—at the expense of privacy and control of one's computer(s).
If you mean visual bloat, ok, there is more there. However, in 100% of the machines I installed XP on, from 128MB 300MHz dinosaurs to 1.6GHz screamers (at the time), XP was perceived to be faster - in every case. I didn't do any official benchmarking.

Just because XP added more stuff, it doesn't mean it slowed down because of the "bloat." Remember, Win2K was the first really new OS since NT4, released in 1996. 18 months later, MS rolled out XP, which was really Windows 2000 Pro but with many months of streamlining and optimizing, as well as adding some noob friendly features, most of which can be turned off.

Gremmie
09-12-2005, 08:02 PM
For 512Mb I'd wanna be able to lick AND taste the interface.

Slashdot is saying ~1GB is preferrable while 512MB will make do.

PDANEWBIE
09-12-2005, 08:03 PM
UGH 7 different versions... Now not only do I have to ask users which OS they are running but then ask them the version and then determine if my solution will work with that specific version... Home and Pro was enough to get me mad.. This outright infuriates me. Just put in all the functionality in there you can use and just price it at what you think is fair. Don't be selling these gimped down versions and then coming up with some pricing scheme that will just make people who have to support the product's minds boggle even more. I can't wait for the first person I ask who tells me that they have Vista Home, I ask which version, I give them the 4 different versions, and they stare at me like a deer caught in the headlights.

(This I have even seen even with XP home and Professional so I know it'll happen even more with 7 versions out there.)

I know this is all marketing ploy but I really think it just sucks when it comes down to having to support it all.

PDANEWBIE
09-12-2005, 08:11 PM
For 512Mb I'd wanna be able to lick AND taste the interface.



Slashdot is saying ~1GB is preferrable while 512MB will make do.

Gremmie your talking about PC RAM not video RAM right? 1 GB video RAM's pushing the envelope a little far I think.

Paragon
09-12-2005, 08:11 PM
And that's EXACTLY what the barrier to adoption will be for Vista - not most of the complains raised in this thread, it will be the cost and the fact that XP is still a pretty good OS and the advantages of Vista will need to be VERY obvious to consumers along with a reasonable price for the upgrade.

I'll bet there are some nervous folks around MS these days. They have obviously put a lot of time, resources, and money into Vista, and all its versions. It could be that with XP they hit a wall where the masses are quite happy with what they have. I doubt the average person outside of the tech industry gives a hoot about Media Centers, and ripping DVDs...they turn on the TV and watch what is on, or rent a movie at the corner store. How many people are going to need the added functionality. It could be pretty disastrous if the majority decided to stay with XP.

Gremmie
09-12-2005, 08:18 PM
Gremmie your talking about PC RAM not video RAM right? 1 GB video RAM's pushing the envelope a little far I think.
Ah yes, PC RAM. All graphical processing has been moved to the GPU, so it needs to be kicking on that end too.

I agree with the comment above: XP helped improved performance on all machines. Thus, PC's could be fairly inexpensive because of the varying hardware you need. Apple's are the exact opposite, hardware heavy and very low variance--could this mean PCs might jump to the level of Apple's for the first few months of Vista?

Jonathan1
09-12-2005, 08:39 PM
Don’t really give a flying **** about Vista simply because of PVP-OPM. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend another grand on a monitor (Or close to it.) because MS wants some uber secure DRM connection from the HD content to the monitor. Don't care if the industry is pushing this. I shot my cash wad on my 2405FPW. I'm not getting another monitor for at least 3-5 years which means I don't care about Vista.
We'll see what road Apple takes in all of this but I have the suspicion they are going to screw the customer as badly as Vista is. :cry: The MPAA can all burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. :twisted:

Dazbot
09-12-2005, 08:46 PM
I've had enough problems with Home and Pro, I spent 2 days just upgrading XP Home on some Dell's a company had bought to XP Pro just so I could add them to a new 2003 Small Business Server Domain. It doubled the migration time for each PC. At least the upgrades didn't cause any major problems.

Having 7 versions will just confuse end users and drive techies mad trying to found out what version the user has and explaining to them why feature X or Y they have read about is missing or why Z won't install.

Aren't they doing something similar with Office 12 as well?

I'm quite happy with XP on my PCs and don't intend to upgrade unless there is something amazing in the new version.

gibson042
09-12-2005, 09:03 PM
If you mean visual bloat, ok, there is more there. However, in 100% of the machines I installed XP on, from 128MB 300MHz dinosaurs to 1.6GHz screamers (at the time), XP was perceived to be faster - in every case. I didn't do any official benchmarking.

Just because XP added more stuff, it doesn't mean it slowed down because of the "bloat." Remember, Win2K was the first really new OS since NT4, released in 1996. 18 months later, MS rolled out XP, which was really Windows 2000 Pro but with many months of streamlining and optimizing, as well as adding some noob friendly features, most of which can be turned off.
I wasn't implying that XP runs slower than 2000; in my experience they perform about equally (although I must admit I'm impressed by your results). I just think the added features like picture viewing/printing, media metadata, and remote desktop are better handled by dedicated applications; and that things like the task-oriented Control Panel and the SP2 Security Panel or whatever MS calls it are a joke, at the expense of users who actually think they have a secure machine. Sure, I miss out on taskbar grouping and most-recently-run programs (why oh why will nobody write a shell extension to add these to pre-XP Windows?), and Remote Assistance would be really useful for helping my out-of-state relatives with their computer problems. But I'm okay with that.

Many may not upgrade to Vista because XP is good enough for them. I didn't upgrade to XP because 2000 is good enough for me. That, and the default display settings are butt-ugly :wink:. There is more to the story, though. I felt that XP not only didn't have much to offer, but that it actually took away in some respects (like having to reauthenticate if you upgrade too much of your system, and Microsoft's acknowledged ability to snoop on you with every Windows Update). They proved to be a lot less Orwellian than I feared when I first heard about them, but I sure as heck wasn't going to pay Microsoft for the privilege of giving up control of my computers. Vista takes away even more, with its stupid sandboxed video. And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more. The only reason I can think of for anyone to upgrade their current system from 2000/XP to Vista is the eye-candy of Aero, which will probably require a $250+ video card. Note that it's not even a good reason, and that anyone of that opinion probably already has the Mac that is better suited to them anyway.

Damion Chaplin
09-12-2005, 10:19 PM
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100? Almost everything that Vista does Tiger already does. Everything else is just fluff that can be added with 3rd party freeware (save the object-oriented UI). Those x86 Macs (with dual-boot XP) were looking pretty sweet before this announcement, and now it's looking even sweeter...

MS better get their act together soon, methinks. I've always been a strong proponent for Windows over Mac, but this may just make me jump the fence... Tiger is one of the best OSes I've ever seen. It makes XP looks like WinME in comparison. Vista had better be freakin' sweet if they expect me to upgrade my 4 machines... I'd rather buy new machines that can run both OSes than spend that much money and still be limited to Windows...

Phoenix
09-13-2005, 12:06 AM
I agree that Vista better be incredible.

But 7 versions of Vista is too many. This is only going to confuse consumers. The enterprise may have time to figure out all the differences, but most individuals aren't going to have time or couldn't care less to figure it all out.

Support for all of these versions is going to be a nightmare.

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 12:54 AM
Don’t really give a flying **** about Vista simply because of PVP-OPM. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend another grand on a monitor (Or close to it.) because MS wants some uber secure DRM connection from the HD content to the monitor. Don't care if the industry is pushing this. I shot my cash wad on my 2405FPW.

&lt;groan> All this moaning about PVP-OPM is ridiculous! Sorry, but it is.

Look, if Microsoft and the Hollywood studios want to embark on some crazy DRM plan that requires new hardware, let them! All that means is that you won't have access to whatever they have planned - likely on-demand HD video streaming. Hardly ANYONE will have access to it for years because it will require monitors that don't exist today. I agree with you it's stupid...but that has NOTHING to do with the rest of Vista! People talk about PVP-OPM as if Internet Explorer or Microsoft Word won't work without a new monitor! It's all FUD, pure and simple. It's nothing more than another crazy DRM experiment that will fail in a huge way - but it won't impact my use of Vista in any way (as far as I know at least).

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 12:58 AM
And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more.

Where have you seen pricing information?

The only reason I can think of for anyone to upgrade their current system from 2000/XP to Vista is the eye-candy of Aero, which will probably require a $250+ video card. Note that it's not even a good reason, and that anyone of that opinion probably already has the Mac that is better suited to them anyway.

Honestly, have you tried Vista Beta 1 yet? Or read about what will eventually be in the OS? If you think the only thing that Vista offers is a new Aero UI, then you're completely ignorant about what the OS will offer. If you want to stick with Windows 2000 because it works for you, hey, cool, but saying that Vista is only XP + Aero is simply ignorant and utterly false. It's like saying that XP is just a new UI over Windows 2000. Hell, Vista isn't even based on the XP kernel! It's based on the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which brings with it a whole whack of security benefits that XP will never have.

It's kind of sad to see that so many people think Microsoft has spent the past four years working on a new UI for XP and they're calling it Vista. :roll:

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 12:59 AM
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100?

A very good point. That's one of the reasons why I think the pricing for Vista is going to be much less than most people are thinking...

Gremmie
09-13-2005, 01:04 AM
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100?

A very good point. That's one of the reasons why I think the pricing for Vista is going to be much less than most people are thinking...

What about the hardware cost this might imply? Early indications that the major changes are not going to be friendly for older machines? The OS may fluctuate +/- $100 around current price points, but the hardware implications might boost the costs near the typical Mac price points. This, however, I must admit, would be a short-term implication...

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 01:15 AM
What about the hardware cost this might imply? Early indications that the major changes are not going to be friendly for older machines?

Based on what I learned at the Longhorn Lab, and based on my experience with Vista Beta 1, it's about the same performance-wise as XP if you scale back the graphical features. You certainly need a decent PC if you want all the bells and whistles, but someone with a five year old PC won't want/need all that, so I think it's an unfair argument that anyone who wants to use Vista will need a new PC. Especially if they come out with a limited version that only costs $50 or something, the upgrade would be worth it for security alone. And we're in the era of the $300 computer - it's not like we're in the late '90s when even a basic PC cost $1500.

gibson042
09-13-2005, 02:39 AM
And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more.

Where have you seen pricing information?
I said probably. As in, right now an upgrade to XP MCE 2005 costs about $120 to $150 and an upgrade to XP Professional costs about $150 to $200, and neither one is advertised as "the best operating system ever offered for a personal PC".

Honestly, have you tried Vista Beta 1 yet? Or read about what will eventually be in the OS? If you think the only thing that Vista offers is a new Aero UI, then you're completely ignorant about what the OS will offer. If you want to stick with Windows 2000 because it works for you, hey, cool, but saying that Vista is only XP + Aero is simply ignorant and utterly false. It's like saying that XP is just a new UI over Windows 2000. h-ll, Vista isn't even based on the XP kernel! It's based on the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which brings with it a whole whack of security benefits that XP will never have.
No, I haven't tried the beta, although I did read a few reviews and see a lot of pictures. I know all about what will eventually be in the OS. WinFS is great, but it won't be available when Vista ships... and when it is available, it will be backported to XP. As will Avalon and Indigo; in fact IIRC the whole WinFX API will be available on Windows XP. Monad will not be available at release either. So we have a fancy new UI, the base set of which will be available on XP, and a search/information-oriented experience. Regarding that, look for Google to one-up Microsoft on their own platform. And as for security... well, I'm not holding my breath when it comes to Microsoft and security. They have quite a knack for poorly implementing good ideas.

It's kind of sad to see that so many people think Microsoft has spent the past four years working on a new UI for XP and they're calling it Vista. :roll:
That's not what's happening, and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But the base API platform will be available to Windows XP, and we have no idea when the really cool stuff will be available. Given all that, there doesn't seem to be much reason to abandon XP, especially if Vista carries a price to match its "best operating system ever offered for a personal PC" label.

I may be wrong on these opinions, possibly completely wrong. I am judging from past actions and events, both in pricing and in bugs and in features dropping out of Vista (or into XP) faster than I can keep track of them. I really am looking forward to checking out WinFS and Monad (finally, a real command line environment!), but they're nowhere in sight. It's possible that Microsoft have turned themselves around and are ready to impress us again, but if they value podcasting and RSS integration with the OS (gosh, that doesn't sound like an attack vector or anything) more than CSS2 compliance from IE7, I wouldn't count on it. Of course, I've never been to the Longhorn Lab and my analysis is admittedly based only on news and conjecture. I'll be happy if I am wrong.

Jonathon Watkins
09-13-2005, 02:48 AM
I am looking forward to Vista for many reasons, one of them being 64 bit computing support. However, from what I understood (e.g. an article from Overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com/tips00818/)), it seems that legitimate purchasers of high deifination DVD will not be able to view them at full resolution if they don't buy a new video card and monitor:

What is being described here is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the protection schemes being cracked today. The content will be encrypted up the ying-yang, and decrypting will be heavily hardware-based with constant polling at multiple points in the system.

In a sentence, if your hardware (primarily your video card and monitor) isn't up to security snuff, and you try playing a future HD-DVD or the like, legitimate or not, it either won't play at all or at best will only play in low resolution.

If you just bought a bunch of state-of-the-art, cutting-edge equipment, this means you, too. Just about any monitor sold today doesn't have the circuitry needed to make Longhorn DRM happy. It's possible to have a little box/adapter that will make it happy, but they're expensive today, and it's clear that such technology will be discouraged in the future.

This does not seem to be about on-demand HD video streaming, but 'basic' playback of HD-DVDs, which is a much more mainstream activity. There does appear to be something to be concerned about as this seems to affect all users who want to view HD material. I know it's a huge big DRM plan by Hollywood, who want us to buy new hardware that Utterly locks down 'their' content, but in the end we may have to upgrade to new monitors and graphics cards if we want to view their films. Mass boycot anyone? :wink:

gt24
09-13-2005, 03:30 AM
&lt;snip>
This does not seem to be about on-demand HD video streaming, but 'basic' playback of HD-DVDs, which is a much more mainstream activity. There does appear to be something to be concerned about as this seems to affect all users who want to view HD material. I know it's a huge big DRM plan by Hollywood, who want us to buy new hardware that Utterly locks down 'their' content, but in the end we may have to upgrade to new monitors and graphics cards if we want to view their films. Mass boycot anyone? :wink:

It will happen like something else is happening... and that is video gaming. It costs too much to play the latest games on the PC side of things, so people are switching to consoles. If you are told that you need a new monitor to play that HD-DVD, or buy this less than $100 player to play it through your TV, what are you going to do? People will do what is cheapest OVERALL and refuse to buy only if it is really impossible to satisfy the industry's demands. Somehow, I think the PC is being pinched out of the media market by these newer demands and overall might be getting pinched out of focus for a while...

but then again, who knows... right?

If there isn't a significant draw, then people will stick with what works. If something works better, they will go there. Right now Vista, in the consumer's eyes, has "a pretty UI". Microsoft's ad campaign better try to say more than that and hopefully we all shall learn what neat things Vista will do. If Vista turns out to be a mostly empty shell of computing pains (limitations, DRM, etc), then people will just drift to what works better for them... In other words, Microsoft can really mess this release up badly, or they can pull it off quite wonderfully like the largest OS manufacturer in the US can do... well, could do... Time will tell though.

&lt;edit> WinSuperSite has a comparison matrix up! http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp

I haven't read it too exclusively, but the general idea is that all the Vista versions will provide varying functionality with the Uber edition providing the best of everything, including security (Oh, lovely, security is also going to be a distro favor feature?). In the matrix, the Uber edition has a lot of optional check boxes which I think now will be items that can be installed of the Vista CD but won't be installed by default... or at least that would be the smart alternative.

Post your feelings about the matrix! Comparing Home Pro to Uber... Home Pro does not have P2P (yes, PEER TO PEER) meeting capability nor remote desktop... remote desktop being a sad thing to remove because it does help when I can remote desktop to a clueless user to fix something (used it once or twice). Fax client, as mentioned before, not included in Home Pro.

There is a new type of networking doman called Quattro and that is the only one Home Pro can connect to. Uber is unrestricted. If you are using older Windows versions, I doubt they will know how to talk to a Quattro talking computer... There is also a "Secure Startup" option (security related?!) that is only in the top business edition and Uber edition... certainly not Home Pro... but I don't think this will be a great loss, but this is most likely why Uber will be considered more secure.

Ultimate edition WILL NOT REQUIRE ACTIVATION! Seems like Microsoft learned to use that "feature" as a carrot... and it is ironic how a feature designed to limit piracy is waved away for a premium price.

Uber will have no artifical memory limit while Home Pro will be capped to 16 Gb (wonder if this will be a big deal). Looking at starter edition's artifical limit of 256 Mb though makes me feel sorry for those folks overseas who will be buying that. 8 Gb for the Home normal edition... wonder if that will be a concern as well. Also, only Uber edition will support dual CPUs.

All in all, I think the grid helped a ton. I don't exactly like the removal of remote desktop, nor the limitation in networking, the lack of enhanced security features (I need to see what the heck secure startup means before I feel certain about this though), and how activation is seen as a feature that you have to suffer unless you have enough cash. However, at least this Home Pro doesn't seem as desperate, but I still don't like it...

&lt;/edit>

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 05:14 AM
This does not seem to be about on-demand HD video streaming, but 'basic' playback of HD-DVDs, which is a much more mainstream activity.

Show me one place, Japan included, where playing high-definition DVD content is a mainstream activity. ;-) HD-DVD content does not exist in a mainstream way yet, so to me this is conjecture about something that isn't going to be a significant issue for YEARS. The same issue is coming up in the home theatre segment with HDCP - it's looking like you won't be able to watch Blu-Ray or HD-DVD content unless you have a TV set that supports HDCP. To me, this is MUCH more of a concern than this issue on Vista, because I don't upgrade my TV equipment every 18-24 months like I do with my computer gear.

This issue is much broader than just being related to Windows Vista because it's really about ALL high-def content playback, and IMO the number of people who are going to want to watch high-def DVDs on their computer monitors is much, much smaller than those who will want to watch it on their TV sets.

I think that this approach to DRM is immensely stupid, and it's going to backfire in a huge way, but knocking Windows Vista for this issue is just plain goofy.

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 05:19 AM
If you are told that you need a new monitor to play that HD-DVD, or buy this less than $100 player to play it through your TV, what are you going to do?

That scenario only works if your TV has HDCP inputs, which 99.999999% of the TV's out there right now do not. Trust me, this issue is MUCH bigger than Windows Vista, and Microsoft is only following where the rest of the industry is already headed. I'm not happy about it, but it's not right to place all the blame at their feet - it's the stupid movie studios that are forcing this issue, but it will blow up in their face when no one will buy their asinine high-def DVDs because no one owns the right type of equipment to play it! :roll:

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 05:34 AM
Gee, look, it's already been cracked:

http://nanocrew.net/2005/08/31/reversing-nsc/

;-)

Phronetix
09-13-2005, 09:21 PM
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100?

It sounds like you're assuming Tiger, then Leopard are going to be easily portable to non-Apple systems. Notwithstanding the fact that it will be illegal to do so, I'd give Apple and intel some credit for figuring out a way to stop folks from dumping XP in favor of OS X. Apple has claimed that only their hardware will run the x86 port of OS X. The current beta isn't meant to have the kind of protection to be able to stop this, so it isn't evidence of vulnerability per se. That being said, it is well known among developers that Intel Developer kits from Apple include TCPA/TPM DRM in the Kernel. This is the so-called Trustworthy Computing DRM that as far as I understand was included in only a limited way for the beta.

For me, I think it'd be nice to have a tablet or small laptop in the house running Vista. I'm at least hoping that, with Vista, MS can put to rest most of the vulnerabilities to viruses, spyware and worms that have plaqued their OS for so long. Since I rid the household of that crap in 2002 when we switched to OS X, I'm not interested in reliving the nightmare again.

gibson042
09-13-2005, 09:45 PM
WinSuperSite has a comparison matrix up! http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp
Thank you, that was by far the most thorough examination of Vista that I've seen yet. Regarding the feature comparison, Home Basic seems to be neutered with respect to the others (reduced networking capability; no support for portability features like synchronization, tablet, or auxiliary displays; no scheduled backup, file system encryption, Aero glass, "productivity features", "advanced photography", or premium games).

Most interesting to me, though, are the differences between Home Premium and Professional: you could trade Media Center functionality and Microsoft DVD and HD video authoring for Remote Desktop, faxing (!), lifted memory restrictions, support for multiprocessor systems, and removal of Windows Activation. If they are priced equally, Professional seems to be the better deal for everything except for Media Center PCs.

Damion Chaplin
09-13-2005, 10:27 PM
It sounds like you're assuming Tiger, then Leopard are going to be easily portable to non-Apple systems.

Actually, I wasn't assuming that at all. I was saying I'd rather buy Apple-branded hardware if it will allow me to run both OSes rather than continue to build my own rigs and be limited to Windows. I'd rather pay extra money (up to twice as much as a home-built machine) and have the added functionality. Unless of course Vista blows Tiger (and Leopard) out of the water, which I'm finding pretty unlikely at this point. Of course, I hope I'm wrong and Vista really will be the best operating system ever invented for a personal computer... Only time will tell though.

Jason Dunn
09-13-2005, 11:05 PM
Regarding the feature comparison, Home Basic seems to be neutered with respect to the others (reduced networking capability; no support for portability features like synchronization, tablet, or auxiliary displays; no scheduled backup, file system encryption, Aero glass, "productivity features", "advanced photography", or premium games).

So it's basically exactly like XP Home. ;-) I don't see that as being "neutered", it's more a matter of being what people are used to today, which makes sense given it's "Home Basic" line.

faxing (!)

So I find the excitement over this feature interesting - I haven't faxed from a PC in years, nor has anyone else I know. Everyone I know who does any significant amount of faxing gets a standalone fax machine or fax/printer combo unit. Is it really a big deal that not all versions will be able to fax? Heck, I thought they took faxing out of Windows years ago, back in the 9x days.

gibson042
09-14-2005, 07:56 AM
Regarding the feature comparison, Home Basic seems to be neutered with respect to the others...

So it's basically exactly like XP Home. ;-) I don't see that as being "neutered", it's more a matter of being what people are used to today, which makes sense given it's "Home Basic" line.
Fair enough. I doubt anyone will be upgrading to Home Basic anyway (or from it, for that matter). It will only exist pre-installed on computers sold to people who won't mess with it. Just like XP Home ;-).

faxing (!)

So I find the excitement over this feature interesting - I haven't faxed from a PC in years, nor has anyone else I know. Everyone I know who does any significant amount of faxing gets a standalone fax machine or fax/printer combo unit. Is it really a big deal that not all versions will be able to fax? Heck, I thought they took faxing out of Windows years ago, back in the 9x days.
That's exactly the point. To the best of my recollection, faxing has been in every release since Windows 95, and hardly anyone ever used it. Now they are taking it out of the personal editions (except Ultimate), and advertising it as a feature of the business ones! What's next, taking out all 50 KiB of Notepad and advertising "Basic Text Editing" in Blackcomb Professional?

gt24
09-14-2005, 01:53 PM
&lt;snip>
That's exactly the point. To the best of my recollection, faxing has been in every release since Windows 95, and hardly anyone ever used it. Now they are taking it out of the personal editions (except Ultimate), and advertising it as a feature of the business ones! What's next, taking out all 50 KiB of Notepad and advertising "Basic Text Editing" in Blackcomb Professional?

Second that idea here... faxing is nothing new to the Windows world and has been included in every release. It is a small program, it works as it should, and people take it for granted. Now, true, I have never needed to fax anything, but having the capability would be nice. I used the Microsoft Office Document Image Writer printer thingy recently because I needed to forward a copy of my schedule (in Outlook) to somebody ASAP! I couldn't find a way of importing my schedule in Excel that make it look like Outlook's Calendar View... but printing it in the Image Writer got perfect (although, black and white) results. I had to email the schedule, so that was the end of that...

HOWEVER, other people in related departments at the location where I needed to forward my schedule want it faxed in. Now, am I gonig to try to hunt down a fax machine to fax in something that I need to print from my computer right when I need something turned in ASAP, or would I have just used the fax wizard in Windows? Vista made that decision for me if I choose the wrong flavor.

I just don't like the removal of features that were always there before, despite if it was heavily used or not. Fact is, I don't really use the faxing wizard so I won't consider it when I upgrade... but if I'm ever in a pinch again (like mentioned above), this little lack of convience will make things just a little more difficult...

Felix Torres
09-14-2005, 03:03 PM
There is also a "Secure Startup" option (security related?!) that is only in the top business edition and Uber edition... certainly not Home Pro... but I don't think this will be a great loss, but this is most likely why Uber will be considered more secure.

Ultimate edition WILL NOT REQUIRE ACTIVATION! Seems like Microsoft learned to use that "feature" as a carrot... and it is ironic how a feature designed to limit piracy is waved away for a premium price.


&lt;/edit>

Secure Startup is the first implementation of the one-time "Palladium" Hardware-based Security features. It is a corporate-level security feature chances are you would never choose to put it on your personal computer.

Activation? Nothing new here, y'know...
XP Pro has *always* been available in three forms:
- Retail, which always needed activation
- Enterprise, which never requires activation because it uses specific license keys per corporate account
- OEM, which varies by vendor but tends towards activation

With the new matrix, most of the business editions of Vista will be delivered under corporate contract *or* come directly installed and linked to the very hardware they are purchased with, (there may not be a retail version) hence no need for activation. This is the same *existing* motherboard tech that Apple will be borrowing to insure OSX/96 only runs on Apple-tweaked motherboards, btw.

Now, how the Ultimate Edition handles activation is unclear (it *is* a year away, guys!) but a lot of the copies will likely be purchased with new hardware *and* since the motherboard-based security features will be built-in all intel-based mobos since before Vista ships (some already have it today) the hardware-based security will directly tie the ultimate edition to a specific mobo, and likely make activation moot.

In other words, you get the same effect through different means. :-)

And since the home editions won't necessarily support hardware-based security, they still need activation. Nothing unusual, really.
Unless you didn't know that Intel chipsets already come with hardware-based security features...

Jason Dunn
09-14-2005, 04:15 PM
HOWEVER, other people in related departments at the location where I needed to forward my schedule want it faxed in. Now, am I gonig to try to hunt down a fax machine to fax in something that I need to print from my computer right when I need something turned in ASAP, or would I have just used the fax wizard in Windows? Vista made that decision for me if I choose the wrong flavor.

I see your point, but by the same token, how many computers even come with fax modems anymore? I haven't had a modem in my desktop PCs for years and years...my laptops still have them but I think those will fade away eventually as well (though it will take longer).

There are always free/cheap 3rd party solutions:
http://www.rkssoftware.com/mightyfax/overview.html

Ultimately given the number of people that still fax from their PCs, this will probably not cause many alarm bells in the general computer-using populace.