Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Microsoft Vista Info Leaked 476

slashnutt writes to tell us Yahoo News is reporting that Microsoft accidentally released information about Windows Vista earlier than originally planned. From the article: "Microsoft disclosed information about a plan to release eight different editions of the new operating system on a company help page that was under development. The company has not made any official statements about the different versions of Windows Vista it plans to offer. The company has since taken down the Web site and declined to confirm the information and said it will offer more details about the Vista launch, targeted for the second half of 2006, in the coming weeks. Microsoft spokesman said in a statement 'This page has since been removed as it was posted prematurely and was for testing purposes only.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Vista Info Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:40PM (#14772404) Homepage
    Ugh. Eight different versions.

    Windows Vista Starter (designed to combat piracy of Windows overseas; probably won't go on sale in US)
    Windows Vista Home Basic
    Windows Vista Home Premium
    Windows Vista Business Basic
    Windows Vista Business Premium
    Windows Vista Corporate Basic
    Windows Vista Corporate Premium
    Windows Vista Ultimate

    While I'd really like to believe otherwise, I cannot help but think that this will turn into a nightmare for application support. The ones that worry the most are the two at either end of the line: Starter and Ultimate. Will you need Ultimate to run top-of-the-line games or use top-of-the-line hardware? Will people with Starter not be able to use your program because they're missing certain functionality? Will you be able to burn DVDs with Home Basic, or does that functionality only come with Premium and Ultimate?

    Sure, each version will be tailored to that particular end user's most likely needs. You can bet, however, that there'll be all sorts of "incentives" to bump yourself up to the next level of functionality in the form of "well, that functionality only comes with version X"...

  • by voxel ( 70407 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:43PM (#14772436)
    With its thousands and thousands of "versions" (distributions).

    I'll take eight, over eight-thousand.
  • Testing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:43PM (#14772439) Homepage
    'This page has since been removed as it was posted prematurely and was for testing purposes only.'"

    Testing what, the waters?
  • by bogado ( 25959 ) <bogado&bogado,net> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:51PM (#14772493) Homepage Journal
    It's true, but none of those thousands of versions of linux are intentionaly crippled. Ops. No you cannot run a 'server' with this version or no you can not setup this or that without the premium version.

    Sure, Linux is still strugling with the packaging since there is no standard. But it is getting better and better, everyday. :-D
  • by SoCalDissident ( 953017 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:57PM (#14772567)
    Very few people will probably crack any of the versions, and those are the people that probably won't pay for the basic version. You also assume that the feature are present and can be unlocked; more than likely they won't even be there in the cheaper versions.

    I think part of the reason MS is doing this is so that people will feel like they have more "choices" and feel like they can get just what they need without all that "stuff only businesses need" and get the cheaper version of windows. Then they'll realize later they need to upgrade, and spend more on that than if they would've just bought the Uiltimate version to begin with.

    And plenty of businesses will upgrade after MS stops supporting whatever they are running now, or when any new PCs they buy will come with OEM versions of Vista and they don't want to support multiple OSs accross the company...

  • Re:Old news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:05PM (#14772630) Homepage
    This is a false choice though. Artificially created to give the illusion of choice.

    You're just deciding on how crippled you want your OS to be. Choice would be asking the user at install "which of the following apps do you want installed?"
  • by aweraw ( 557447 ) * <aweraw@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:09PM (#14772661) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft is hoping they will be able to sell Windows to people twice.

    here's the scenario:

    Sally heads down to her local big chain computer store to purchase a new computer. She hands over a handful of money inreturn for a new box, with Windows Vista Home Basic Edition pre-installed. MS recieves a portion of her money via the MS tax.

    She then heads home and proceeds to configure her new computer, but to her absolute dismay, she finds that she's unable to do everything that she was previously able to do (like burn CD's, or use DirectX applications) on her old Windowsw XP box. She calls MS support who gingerly inform her that "Oh, that functionality is only included in Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, which you can have for the low low price of $300". Sally has no choice but to pay for another copy of Windows, because the one that came with her new computer was not able to do everything she needed. Microsoft is happy because it has been able to extract 2 license fee's from Sally, without really having to do anything extra for her.
  • by alphasubzero949 ( 945598 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:11PM (#14772673)
    4) Whoever pirates Windows will follow whatever is the most popular/compatible OS.

    Just as all of the leechers out there wanted XP Pro, they're going to want Vista Ultimate Edition. Seriously, how many pirates do you know who really wanted XP Home on their boxes?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:12PM (#14772683)
    You don't know that. When I used to develop databases, I would fill the test databases with dummy data. Sometimes it was complete nonsense utterly unrelated to the purpose of the database (and obviously incorrect--e.g., a customer list database could contain names of characters from a TV show). Sometimes, I would fill the test database with information that was my "best guess" as to what would be in the database. E.g., one may fill a products database with their best guess of what the names of the products are. That could easily be the case here. The web designer filled in dummy data to make sure the layout of the page is correct.
  • by mildness ( 579534 ) <bill@ba[ ].com ['mph' in gap]> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:20PM (#14772743) Homepage
    There's only 2 current versions of Linux: 2.6 and 2.4

    And I've got a bridge you really need to look at.

    Seriously, Voxel even specified "distributions". You are discussing kernel versions a completely different topic.

    Jesus Fucking Christ man. Don't be such a zealot that you can't comprehend a valid point in opposition to your cherished perspective.

    anon so the fan boys don't slit my karma's throat

    (;-{)}

  • by ender- ( 42944 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:21PM (#14772752) Homepage Journal
    Why would you think that? Microsoft has the BEST support for multiple OS and backwards compatibility that I've ever seen in the entire software industry. The vast majority of current software designed for Win32 runs on any of their platforms from the past 10 years. Can you think of any vendor that has better cross-OS and backwards compatibility support? I certainly can't.

    At the risk of being labeled a troll, I have to suggest that perhaps this is because they don't actually change their OS. They just add crappy layer upon crappy layer so that the old stuff runs because every old Microsoft OS is still buried in there somewhere.

  • by Rob_Bryerton ( 606093 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:22PM (#14772760) Homepage
    It confuses more than it clarifies.

    I suppose that's intentional; that way the customer, confused about which 'version' to buy, will upsell themselves, just to be 'safe'.
  • Re:Old news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tyme ( 6621 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:34PM (#14772833) Homepage Journal
    posterlogo [slashdot.org] wrote:
    More choices are rarely a bad idea. I dislike bundled crapola that I'll never need or want.

    It appears you have never heard of the paradox of choice [swarthmore.edu].

    In a nutshell, too many choices often lead to a inability to decide. It is the same reason people take so long to decide on an ice-cream flavor at Baskin-Robbins or on a dish from a chinese carry-out menu: too many choices. Most people simply don't want to think too hard when making a purchase, so it's a good idea for companies to make the range of choices as few and distinct as possible.

    Here is an excerpt from the book [usatoday.com].

  • by i_should_be_working ( 720372 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:34PM (#14772839)
    Jesus fucking christ, don't be so ignorant. The only limitation to a Linux installation is the kernel. Anything else can be added without even rebooting.

    But that's besides the point. The point is that there is no company or other entity telling someone what they can and can't do with their Linux installation just because they didn't pay enough money. Unlike this case with Windows where people will have to make trade offs between how much they want to spend and what they want to do with their OS.

    So complaining and comparing the many Linux distros to these 8 Windows versions is fucking retarded. I can choose any of the top 8 Linux distros and be able to do anything in the Linux world easily.

    But if I choose the budget version of Windows and find that it won't let me do something, well then I'm shit out of luck.
  • by f1r3f0g ( 879606 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:37PM (#14772857)
    So long as they all come with Minesweeper and Solitaire, I'll still be a MSCE.
  • by Jaysu ( 952981 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @08:52PM (#14772925)
    I'll take eight, over eight-thousand.

    Well, the thing to note here is that the eight distributions of Vista cost more than all 8,000 distributions of linux. When its free to upgrade/change your OS, there is no problem. But when you have to pay $$ to upgrade, just to use that one new application, then it hurts.

  • by tomq123 ( 194265 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:14PM (#14773048)
    Didn't it occur to anyone that Microsoft wanted this information to get out so that they could see what the reaction of the marketplace would be? My guess is there is will 4-6 versions of Vista max (Starter, Home, Pro, Europe, Ultimate, and possibly Media).
  • by courtarro ( 786894 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:16PM (#14773057) Homepage
    Likewise, I'll bet all 8 versions of Vista use the same "kernel". It's not the kernel that makes things work or not work (for the most part), it's the user-level software on top.
  • by temojen ( 678985 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:18PM (#14773063) Journal
    Sally has no choice but to pay for another copy of Windows,

    -- Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 8.2).

  • by MojoStan ( 776183 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:18PM (#14773065)
    - Windows Starter 2007
    - Windows Vista Home Basic
    - Windows Vista Home Basic N
    - Windows Vista Home Premium
    - Windows Vista Business
    - Windows Vista Business N
    - Windows Vista Ultimate
    - Windows Vista Enterprise
    Windows Starter version will never be seen by 99% of people outside its intended market (developing nations). How many Slashdot readers have even seen Windows XP Starter Edition on a computer or in a store (including online stores)?

    The 'N' versions of Windows (Europe-only) will be simply ignored by the vast majority of buyers and retailers. Some retailers (maybe most) will not even stock the 'N' versions. Source:

    Vista Enterprise Edition will only be available through volume licensing, so retail buyers won't see this version either. The IT folks who can buy Enterprise Edition are knowledgable enough not to be confused.

    So far, that leaves:

    - Windows Vista Home Basic
    - Windows Vista Home Premium
    - Windows Vista Business
    - Windows Vista Ultimate
    Since Vista Ultimate Edition is probably only for the uber-geek, most retail buyers will probably only need to choose from three versions: (1) Home Basic, (2) Home Premium, and (3) Business. For buyers of Windows PCs, that choice is similar today: XP Home, XP Media Center Edition, and XP Pro.
  • by i_should_be_working ( 720372 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:31PM (#14773119)
    Well, what you say is more understandable. But still, it doesn't take much research to learn that if you need to pick a distro for a company you can't really go wrong with Redhat or SUSE.

    But really, saying that there's too many Linux distros isn't what gets zealots like me all in a knot. What is really irritating about these Windows versions is that capability was taken out of some versions on purpose. Instead of making the product better, some "developers" have been paid to actaully make the product worse. Such insanity would never happen in the open source world. If I pick the 'wrong' distro at least it's functionality isn't being limited on purpose.
  • by fLameDogg ( 866748 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:44PM (#14773189) Journal
    Code compiled on one distro... does not compile on other distro

    What does that mean? It's true that code compiled on one distro may not run on another distro--but then again it might (though certainly not between architectures). I've often found it does. But it depends on things like the relevant libs being the same or similar (or there at all), things being in places where the compiled code expects to find them, etc. It certainly is a crapshoot.

    But one of the things I like about a (typical) Linux-based OS is that if all else fails, one can just grab a tarball of the source and compile away. The tools are already there, if not easily available. That is true for pretty much any standard "distro". I rather doubt that will be true of most, if any, of the various flavors of Vista, assuming that's how it is released.

    It is true that to compile for one distro or another, one might need to pass a couple flags to ./configure or make a change or to to the makefile or something similar. These aren't things any newbie rolling off the turnip truck is going to know, but in most cases that doesn't matter, since most major distros have plenty of ready-made, packaged apps for their fan^Wuser base. It's very nice to have the additional capability (without jumping through major hoops), though. And IMO the ready availability of source is one of the really nice effects of the whole Open Source/Free Software thing.

  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:06PM (#14773298)
    The point is that there is no company or other entity telling someone what they can and can't do with their Linux installation just because they didn't pay enough money.

    There are always trade-offs.

    Red Hat dropped out of the consumer market. Linspire is anchored there.

    The uber-Geek might be able to bend any randomly chosen Linux distro to his will. The reality is that most of us have to make choices.

    Choices in hardware. Choices in software. Choices in technical support.

    Time and money.

  • by Krutontar ( 557803 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:11PM (#14773326)
    I did read that not all of the versions will have a Corp equivalent for the pirates. Ultimate definatly won't. I have faith in the pirates however. They are, as that saying goes, like a million bank robbers all trying to break into the same vault at the same time from the comfort of their own homes. There is something to be said for that kind of manpower.
  • My prediction: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:19PM (#14773361) Homepage
    SLOW adoption. Even slower than WindowsXP. But in the end, as long as the industry chokehold lasts, people will buy the hardware so they can run the software because at some point there will be no choice. But let me tell you -- people are really starting to notice. Businesses are really starting to resent. At my company, we have an ambiguous goal to get off of Microsoft software. Server stuff is easy, but the desktop is simply unimaginable at the moment. But when the budgets start being examined after the question of replacing thousands of desktops is raised, they'll weigh their options once again and likely put more effort into a Linux desktop standard. I know my company isn't alone.
  • by marko123 ( 131635 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:21PM (#14773378) Homepage
    "Leak" a "test" website, and gauge the potential customer response.

    Quite clever.
  • by ManOfMidnight ( 937941 ) <{JEmfinger} {at} {bellsouth.net}> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:31PM (#14773440)
    I agree with you (almost) completely. I can't even imagine what Windows XP (or even as far back as ME) could have been if it weren't for Microsoft's appearent need for backwards compatability. Would ME have been as horrible as it was if it weren't built on top of DOS as a confused little 16/32 bit ...defective hybrid..?

    Granted, in their defense, it's nice to be able to play those Win95 games on XP, and cheaper than running two systems, but my fear is that Microsoft is always trying to appease the buisnesses who insist on using Word Perfect version 2. Backwards compatability is a great thing in many ways, but the question is always "How far backwards?" In my opinion, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this opinion, Microsoft always decides to go to far backward.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @11:37PM (#14773746)
    Its chosen for them, by the whoever sold them the PC.

    So if Dell chooses to go with Home Premium, or whatever its called, then thats what ~70% of the people who buy Dell will use. Chances are, with no questions asked.

  • by linuxfanatic1024 ( 876800 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @11:51PM (#14773827) Homepage
    Each version of Windows has a different license saying what you can and cannot do with it. The home versions will probably have licenses telling you that you can't run a server on them. Linux distros do not have such licensing.

    It's mostly about LICENSING and EULAs on Windows, not just included apps.
  • by Whiteox ( 919863 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @12:34AM (#14774067) Journal
    "do you think that is also unfair that one must pay more for a nicer car over a basic car? They both get you from point A to point B, but one has more amenities that some people want."

    Yes, you are right. But what about distros like Mepis? or Lindows (R.I.P)?
    Mepis comes with hundreds of apps and games and utilities, ready to run.
    The point here is also marketing. Microsoft are good at that. Its imaginable that Apple's OS is heading towards competing with Windows. There are also a few distros of that too.

    Historically, Microsoft have been against piracy from the start. They have cleverly engineered old VLMs out of the registration-activation-update processes, they support FULL DRM and will in the future pursue technologies to defeat piracy.

    I for one, welcome the 8 versions of Vista!

    There are so many 'users' out there that find computers complicated, that a simple operating system is all they want, visually, minimum options, easy to navigate, install and run apps.
    The first OS that can do that will be very popular with many people, including Linnux GUI, Apple OS for Intel etc.

  • by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @01:02AM (#14774230) Homepage
    When Joe User gets to decide, is he a Basic or Premium home user?

    Premium, of course. Who the hell wants to be Basic? They might as well call it "Windows Vista for Dumb People Too Dumb and Uncool for Premium" or "Windows Vista for People Picked Last for Kickball in the Fifth Grade". Nobody will willingly buy Basic, and that's the reason it exists.

    This is common pricing tactic, and it works amazingly well. Our estimation of value works differently looking up the scale than it does looking down. If something costs half as much but is only half as good, that's not seen as a good deal, where something that costs twice as much only needs to be 50% better to be worth consideration. Adjust this to your products and you can always find a point where people will pay a lot more for very little difference. People will focus on the differences, often fixating on some non-essential feature that they *might* want, and base the final decison on that alone.

    Some people seem offended by these kinds of pricing tricks, but I find them incredibly interesting in a "they're hacking my brain" kind of way.
  • by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:11AM (#14774941)
    Linux is a kernel that typically uses GNU userland.

    Windows is an operating system, including a kernel and userland.


    I don't know about you, but when every single person I know says "Linux", they're using it as a short-cut for "Linux distribution" - ie the kernel, userland tools, everything. Similarly, when people say "NT" they mean "Windows NT", not the NT kernel and subsystems (which techincally is all that NT is - Windows runs on top of NT).

With your bare hands?!?

Working...