7?

Microsoft has been no stranger to unusual names. We scoffed when they named XP, and we scoffed again when they named Vista. However Windows 7 sets a new level of bewilderment. Depending on how you wish to count your Windows versions, you can come up with an order that makes Windows 7 the 7th version of Windows - counting the NT kernel desktop releases is one such example - but ultimately the list is as arbitrary as the name.

With the exception of NT4, Microsoft has always made at least two versions of Windows per major kernel, with the second releases being a refinement of what came before rather than a massive rearchitecting. Win98 refined Win95, WinXP refined Win2K. And Windows 7, as it turns out, refines Vista (even if MS wants to get as far from that name as possible). Windows 7’s kernel is recognized by Microsoft as version 6.1, and Vista was 6.0. While it’s true that kernel version numbers can be equally arbitrary, in this case it’s an appropriate number.

As Vista’s refinement, Windows 7 doesn’t bring with it anywhere near the level of change that Vista brought. With Vista we saw a new networking stack, a radically new video driver model, the moving of audio completely into software, UAC, and more. Meanwhile Windows 7 includes a number of new features, but nothing comparable to Vista’s great overhaul. If you’re a feature warrior looking for something big like Vista, you’re going to come away disappointed. If you’re looking for a smoother transition however Windows 7 should meet those expectations.

And for the name, clearly it’s a bad choice. The return to some kind of version numbering scheme is actually rather nice – it’s normally less arbitrary than a name and leaves no confusion about what order things come in – but to use a version numbering scheme you have to be consistent. Unless Microsoft intends to skip a kernel version number so that Windows 8 runs on the 8.0 kernel, this is only going to get worse as time goes on. It also has the interesting distinction of being harder to search for; “Win7” is a character too short for many sites that require a minimum term length, and “Windows 7” will be read by most software as two separate terms which can be pulled from anywhere.

So it may sound petty, but Microsoft could have picked something more sensible than Windows 7. (Ed: On the other hand, it still is less arbitrary than most CPU and GPU names)

Moving on, we have the matter of the different editions of Windows 7. Microsoft has not completely clarified this matter so we’re going to need to revisit this when Windows 7 finally ships, but they have given us enough solid information to accurately talk about the important bits.

The biggest news is that the Ultimate/Business/Home Premium schism has been resolved with Windows 7. When WinXP Home and Pro were split into more versions, the “everything including the kitchen sink” edition of Windows that was Pro and became Ultimate also became really, really expensive compared to the other editions. The problem was a combination of pricing and how Microsoft decided to split up features and at the same time carve out an extremely high-end niche. Users on Home Premium couldn’t get Remote Desktop. Users on Business couldn’t get Media Center and the built-in MPEG-2 codec. Meanwhile Business was priced higher than Home Premium, but it wasn’t a superset of Home Premium. Ultimate offered everything, but it also included a number of Enterprise features that were useless for even most users. Ultimately power users who wanted something similar to WinXP Pro (mainly, remote desktop and file encryption) were left in a pickle, and everyone else was confused on what edition to get.

With Windows 7, all editions have once again become supersets of other editions, going from Starter to Ultimate. Furthermore, Business edition has been renamed (back) to Professional to reflect this change, and with the return to being a superset of Windows Home Premium it regains its multimedia abilities. For all intents and purposes, Professional is once again the power-user and business user edition. The difference in turn between it and Enterprise/Ultimate has been reduced to BitLocker, Virtual Hard Disk booting, and some other associated enterprise-level features.

This change also marks a collapse in how many versions of Windows 7 are on the retail market. Only Home Premium and Professional will be widely sold at retail and shipped on OEM computers. Enterprise continues to be for volume use, and Home Basic has been demoted to just “emerging markets.” The unknowns at this point are where Starter and Ultimate will best fit in. There is some concern that Starter will find its way onto netbooks in developed markets in order to meet the kind of OS prices that such a cheap computer demands, however we can’t imagine such a castrated OS going over well with users. Previously it has been limited to the cheapest of the cheapest computers in emerging markets.

Meanwhile Microsoft is calling Ultimate a “limited retail and OEM” product, which we take to mean it won’t be sold on store shelves and instead would be limited to specialty retailers like Newegg, and pre-installed on few if any systems. There’s clearly going to be a need for a non-volume license edition of Enterprise (which is the role Ultimate fills) but Professional significantly reduces the practical value of it. Ultimate may very well end up being the pirate edition of Windows 7, because right now there’s even less going for it than what’s going for Vista Ultimate. Hopefully Microsoft will clarify this before Windows 7 launches.

Windows 7: A New Marketing Approach Getting Dirty: What’s Changing Under the Hood
Comments Locked

121 Comments

View All Comments

  • Adul - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    MS cash reserves are actually around $26.3 billion
  • snookie - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    Apple's stock is dramatically higher and they have much more cash in reserve. Xbox sure in hell was designed to be profitable on both hardware and games and neither is. Microsoft knew they would lose money the 1st few years but nothing like this. It's been a total disaster for them financially.

    Investors are bullish on Microsoft? Well a lot of them aren't. Microsoft lost half its value in 2008. Half.

    Q9 has not been dismal for Apple. Biggest 2nd quarter ever in the middle of a recession. i guess that must be because of their commercials though....new iPhone coming up in June which will sell as fast as they can make them and Microsoft can't even get that blind, crippled, and dumb Windows Mobile out the door. This is a company in dire need of new leadership and middle management. Instead their answer is to rant and rave and piecemeal out development to whichever country is cheaper this week? Sound like a long term formula to success to you?
  • chewietobbacca - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    You're kidding right? Apple's stock is higher but their market cap is worth $60 billion less because share prices don't mean sh!t. Apple has fewer shares out there hence each one is worth more, but MSFT is still worth 60billion more than AAPL, and if MSFT goes up to $24 a share again, it'll be worth even more.
  • Patrick Wolf - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    Psycho...
  • Jjoshua2 - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    That's good to see its performance is good in general, and its gaming is consistently higher as well. Posting from Windows 7 on my Wind Netbook FTW :)

    Any pricing news? I hope there's a great student rate.
  • griffhamlin - Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - link

    "gaming perfs constistently higher" ???

    are you kidding ? the song remain the same ...
  • samspqr - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    the main reason I hate vista is because it's not XP: everything looks different, I can never find what I'm looking for, so getting used to it would require an effort that doesn't seem to have any compensating advantages (I don't like fancy UIs -I still use the W2K look- and I don't really play games anymore)

    then, about windows7, I still feel it's just a re-spun new SP for vista, with a UI revision, and the only reason it's getting better reviews than the original vista is that some time has passed, so there are better drivers, and you're testing it on much more powerful hardware

    now, that Wind comment makes me wonder...

    may even I fall on this one?

    we'll see
  • cyriene - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link

    I never understood how XP users say they "can never find anything in Vista."
    I'm not Windows expert, but after using my new laptop with Vista for 3 hours I knew where over 95% of the things and setting are located. And mos tof them are in the same place as XP for that matter. Control panel is the same... Start menu slightly different, but similar enough to figure out in 5 seconds. Plus if there is something you're looking for, the Vista help search actually ...HELPED me find it! I was actually suprised how well the help works. Also, if that failed a quick Google search is all it takes.
    I don't feel MS should make ever OS exactly the same with everything in the same place. It makes sense for some things to move, and it isn't hard to find them if you take 5 seconds to do that.
  • dmpk - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - link

    I agree. I think it is easy to find stuff on Vista with a little bit of playing. The transition is same as that from Windows 98 to Windows XP...
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    I completely agree. If you can't find something in Vista and you're used to XP, it's either so unused that it was removed, or you're just not trying, at all.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now