|
Microsoft have always release multiple versions of their OS, these usually being "Home Starter", "Home Basic", "Home Premium", Professional", "Business" and "Ultimate" (and may other alterations). Why is this? To me it shows lack of care. Why make some not so good versions? Why not make one brilliant OS with everything you can included and charge one universal price. It's basically like saying you can have a crap version and if you pay more you can gradually upgrade to a better version. Take a look at Mac and Ubuntu. For example Apple make a brilliant OS with all the features you could ever need in one version, and everyone gets the "Ultimate" version. UPDATE: This question was featured in one of Chris's videos! |
|
This may not answer your question but it definitely shows how Apple feels about it. |
|
Because some people don't need to be able to log onto a domain and you can only do that in the higher versions of Windows, the features cost more and people that don't need them can save to money by not buying them. So take it as a good thing because that way people can save money and not get features that they don't need. How does this show lack of care? It shows that they care for their customers and don't want to slow down their computers with things that they will never use. That is a flaw in the other OS's because then those programs are running even when they won't ever be used. 1
Why not give them those features at the price of the most basic version? More for your money. 1
Because then Microsoft would loose money. They could start making only the Ultimate Edition but then the would charge you $300. 2
Yes,but then they would be less profitable. Look at it from a company stand point...they make more money the way it is. They are...so...They have a good marketing idea. @TheTechDude - I don't know what you're talking about when you say "That is a flaw in the other OS's because then those programs are running even when they won't ever be used." Perhaps you're not familiar with the way computers work, but nothing is "running even when [it] won't ever be used" on Mac OS X or Ubuntu. In fact, the only OS I can think of that would actually do something like that is windows. Those features are in the OS, but they aren't taking up memory or a significant amount of hard drive space, so why not have them? I never thought I'd use the built-in support for MS Exchange in my Mac, but then my school switched to it and now I use it a lot. I never thought I'd use iPhoto, then I got the iPod touch with the camera, and suddenly I have a huge iPhoto library. I never thought I'd use Terminal, bit I use it all the time. Just because you don't see the need for a feature at the moment doesn't mean it should simply be excluded and you should have to pay for it later. One low-priced OS with all the features is the way to go, no doubt about it. It reduces fragmentation and saves money for people who would have to go buy those other OS versions later. It's a better deal for the customer. If all a company cares about is profit, then yes, multiple sometimes-confusing OS versions is definitely the way to go. If they care about the customer, they'll go with one version (the best one) and charge a fair amount for it. 1
@ihax0rdev: So you are telling me that having feature you wont use on your computer does take up hard drive space? I may not run Mac OSX as my main OS but I am sure that files don't just disappear and reappear. The reason the is Windows AnyTime upgrade is so that if you buy say Windows 7 Home premium and your decide that you need the feature in Professional you can upgrade for a free much less than going out and buying it again. Does a 60 year old person need to ability to connect to a domain in there home? No, so then they don't buy professional. I have Windows 7 Ultimate which is the highest version of Windows and I bought it becuase I can: (1. Afford it (2. I like to have all the features a OS has to offer I like Zepplinnes example "Why are there different size iPods?" He says that "one size does not fit all" Which is true why buy features or in this case storage that you don't need?
showing 5 of 8
show all
|
|
They can get more money this way. Think about it, people who cannot afford premium packages can afford the cheaper home packages. |
|
The answer is price points, nothing more nothing less. Microsoft is in this business to make money, keep it simple. :) |
|
Microsoft does not have many products and doing that makes them money. |
|
I am going to go with their highest edition being too expensive, if they started had pricing closer to. $99 - Home $150 - Professional $200 - Ultimate Or something like that, $300 is a lot for an operating system. |
|
With Windows 95 Microsoft switched to the "release an OS every year or two" notion that the American car industry had developed - "Hey John, is that the new Chevy?" / "You sure bet it is Bob, this is the Chevy '59 - it's so much better than the '57!" - as imagined across the USA in the late 1950s. Once you've implemented a bi or tri-annual upgrade regime on your group of tied-in fools - sorry, "delighted customers" - you then need to generate internal marketing tiers between them. So delineate on a line that consumers barely understand and let them plump for the cheapest option - Microsoft get massive consumer market share at a price point that the public will pay, and pressure develops by their own staff on corporates to follow suit. But companies need the domain login capabilities, so needing the higher versions of the OS, so generating more revenue! Genius! I make this sound cynical... the true history of Windows is even more bizarre! Start with a graphical OS on top of a simple filing system, develop and develop some more - mostly user interface and hardware connectivity gains (anyone remember "It's not so much 'Plug and Play', more 'Plug and Pray'!" - how we laughed! - not the movie, btw), barely addressing that the core of the OS is a little flaky particularly for multi-user/multi-processing usage. Branch off a completely new development tree - let's call it "New Technology" or "NT" for short. Corporates love it - it's stable - so support costs are reduced, but hey, it looks old. Update it to look the same as the consumer branch, and carry on developing. OK, the core OS of Win7 follows from Vista, XP, 2000, NT4, NT3.51, NT3.5, NT3.1 and the main difference is in the network capabilities (is there any code in Win7 that has it's source in Win95?) but really it's in the money - priced at points where most consumers are relatively happy (albeit with restricted functionality), they buy an OS with a computer and never upgrade until... they buy a new computer! Corporates are not always so happy with the licensing, but on balance they get their staff on side with usability, support costs that don't seem untoward in the annual figures, and reasonable longevity of the hardware. It really is quite a stroke of genius when you consider it. (Disclaimer: I have a small number of second-hand Compaq and IBM desktop PCs slung under televisions in my home, with Win XP Pro COA licenses, and using Windows Media Player or Media Player Classic to use as media PCs - I'm out of the enforced upgrade loop. And I'm experimenting all the time with migrating to Linux - Ubuntu and Slackware, though am open to trying other distros too.) |
