Topic: Microsoft unveils Vista editions

[IZ]

Microsoft is planning six versions of the next incarnation of its Windows operating system.

Three versions of the software, called Vista, will be for home users, two will be for businesses and one will be for emerging markets.

One of the home versions of Vista will include features that let users store and play back TV shows.

No fixed date has been given for the release of Vista but it is expected to be launched by the end of 2006.

Vista, which was known as Longhorn during its long development, is a major re-working of Windows that makes changes, among other things, to the way the operating system looks and how it handles networking and sound.

Microsoft said the six versions were designed to match the demands different users have for its software. No details have been given about the pricing of the separate versions.

VISTA VERSIONS
Vista Business
Vista Enterprise
Vista Home Basic
Vista Home Premium
Vista Ultimate
Vista Starter

Vista Business will be the basic version for companies of all sizes and includes tools that will help organisations manage their PCs.

The Enterprise version of Vista will have all of the features in the basic version and add to them improved encryption including a BitLocker system that will stop confidential data being viewed if a computer is lost or stolen.

The Home Basic version is intended for those who only want to use their PC to browse the net, use e-mail and create and edit basic documents. It will also include desktop search and security tools.

Vista Home Premium includes everything in the Basic version and adds the new graphical interface called Aero.

Microsoft said it will also have improved media handling abilities so it can help users organise and enjoy their digital images, music and movie collections. Also included will be tools to help people author and burn DVDs.

PCs running the Premium edition will also be able to connect their machine to an Xbox 360 gaming console.

Vista Ultimate has all the features of the business and home editions in one package.

The Starter edition is a streamlined version intended for low powered PCs found in many developing nations.

Also available will be versions made specifically for Europe that, in accordance with an EU mandate, remove the Windows media player.

Microsoft pointed out that the current version of Windows, XP, is available in six different versions though most of these are tuned for the different types of hardware, such as a Tablet PC, people are using.

By contrast Vista versions are organised by what people plan to do with their computer.

"We don't want customers to be forced into buying something that isn't going to meet all their needs," said Barry Goffe, Microsoft's director of Windows client product management.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4754462.stm

[carterhawk]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[williambob286]

Remember, Linux > Windows

[VulturEMaN]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Not quite. Only the Home Basic and the Home Premium will initially have a European version.

Ultimate has EVERYTHING. It's like Euro version and US version and Japanese version to the mega degree. Expect like 3 DVDs of nonsense.

Business and Enterprise are also universal, but they're missing some of the eyecandy that home users will use (IE doesn't come with Windows Media Player no matter what country you're in).

And Starter is mainly marketed for 3rd world countries.

^I believe I read a previous article correctly.....saw this on reddit.com weeks ago...


but hey, I always like hearing new new news.

EDIT: I'm usually wrong, so make sure to criticize my thoughtless post with the upmost sword-and-dagger.

[falco]

I just dunno what flavor to choose from.  I mean..."ultimate"  man.  My luck is I'll get it and they're unveil "ultimate sp" or "super ultimate" or "ultimate lite" or....

[IZ]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Don't blame, I copied it directly from BBC. :tongue:

Remember, Linux > Windows

[snapback]275105[/snapback]

x.x Tell me, why do you hate Windows so much?

[IceFox]

Linux is better for servers, and stuff, and being able to keep it running so long. But as a personal computer, and an office computer...it wont work.

Windows is good, and good for office, gaming (Linux also has this for MMOs), etc. And media.


Mac is good for art such as film editing and reliabilty. Its also good for school computers (As are windows)

[ti89titanium]

nice! I am going to get ultimate for my desktop. I am getting a laptop (MacBook Pro) and my cousin has Linux and he comes over a lot. That way, i'll have access to all three main OS's and then see that is the best.

I don't know if i'll agree with williambob.

[williambob286]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Don't blame, I copied it directly from BBC. :tongue:

Remember, Linux > Windows

[snapback]275105[/snapback]

x.x Tell me, why do you hate Windows so much?

[snapback]275139[/snapback]

Bah, I don't hate it, it's just, slower  

[Snowthrower]

Vista is nothing but a huge disappointment. I'll probably switch to Mac OSX when its time for a new computer.

[ssj4gogita4]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Don't blame, I copied it directly from BBC. :tongue:

Remember, Linux > Windows

[snapback]275105[/snapback]

x.x Tell me, why do you hate Windows so much?

[snapback]275139[/snapback]

Bah, I don't hate it, it's just, slower  

[snapback]275470[/snapback]

faster is not always better

[Snowthrower]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Don't blame, I copied it directly from BBC. :tongue:

Remember, Linux > Windows

[snapback]275105[/snapback]

x.x Tell me, why do you hate Windows so much?

[snapback]275139[/snapback]

Bah, I don't hate it, it's just, slower  

[snapback]275470[/snapback]

faster is not always better

[snapback]275610[/snapback]

I agree.

Linux is HIGHLY overrated.

[cmonkey]

Thats 12 versions mate. Each of those will have EuroVersion without media player and IE :p

[snapback]275101[/snapback]

Don't blame, I copied it directly from BBC. :tongue:

Remember, Linux > Windows

[snapback]275105[/snapback]

x.x Tell me, why do you hate Windows so much?

[snapback]275139[/snapback]

Bah, I don't hate it, it's just, slower  

[snapback]275470[/snapback]

faster is not always better

[snapback]275610[/snapback]

I agree.

Linux is HIGHLY overrated.

[snapback]275611[/snapback]

I disagree.  Once you actually start using linux, like really using it, you'll find that it's amazing.  You just need to find the right distro and get used to it.  For me, it ended up being Ubuntu, both as a server and as a desktop.  Though, the version of Gentoo that came out on Monday is really spiffy looking.  Anyway, having used OS X, Windows XP, and various Linux distros each for several hours a week over the last semester, I can say that all most definately have their strengths and weaknesses.

OS X is nice in that its stable and pretty user friendly, but not so nice in that software that is commonplace for linux and windows does not exist for it, and the OS is over-eye-candied to the point of being cluttered.  Also, more advanced tasks that are easy in linux (messing with the kernel, for example) are difficult in OS X.

Windows is nice in that software and drivers are always around, and it's stable if you know how to use a computer.  It's not so nice in that it's not idiot-proof, maintainance tasks often require reboots, and you're stuck with what you get (no switching window managers or adding modules to the kernel).

Linux is heavenly in all areas mentioned above, except documentation.  If you don't know where to start, or what exactly you're trying to do, you're not going to get far.

[Snowthrower]

I've used multiple distros, including (but not limited to): Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Slackware, Knoppix, Debian, Morphix, MEPIS, SuSE, Fedora, DSL, Fedora, Slax and Red Hat

And I've only found one worthwhile use that it outperforms Windows on. That issue is Penetration Testing. For that, I use Backtrack (a distro based on SLAX).

Otherwise, I see no reason to run Linux as my primary desktop. One of the main reasons is when sending someone using a Windows computer, a file made on a Linux computer.

Example: I saved a file that I wrote up in OpenOffice in Linux, sent it to a Windows PC, the file was somewhat corrupted; the margins were off, same with paragraph options, etc.

I understand that knowing how to program and compile is a key part of Linux, but if I was a programmer, why would I want to appeal to less than 2% of computer users.

I can do anything I need in Windows, and if I cant, I can probably find a program or a solution to do what I need. And you cant say that about Linux.

If I switch, it will be to Mac OSX.

[cmonkey]

I've used multiple distros, including (but not limited to): Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Slackware, Knoppix, Debian, Morphix, MEPIS, SuSE, Fedora, DSL, Fedora, Slax and Red Hat

And I've only found one worthwhile use that it outperforms Windows on. That issue is Penetration Testing. For that, I use Backtrack (a distro based on SLAX).

Otherwise, I see no reason to run Linux as my primary desktop. One of the main reasons is when sending someone using a Windows computer, a file made on a Linux computer.

Example: I saved a file that I wrote up in OpenOffice in Linux, sent it to a Windows PC, the file was somewhat corrupted; the margins were off, same with paragraph options, etc.

I understand that knowing how to program and compile is a key part of Linux, but if I was a programmer, why would I want to appeal to less than 2% of computer users.

I can do anything I need in Windows, and if I cant, I can probably find a program or a solution to do what I need. And you cant say that about Linux.

If I switch, it will be to Mac OSX.

[snapback]275622[/snapback]

Have you ever tried using Windows as a router?  I've set up a linux router on thrown away hardware in 15 minutes.

What about a computing cluster?  10 pentium IIs might be useless on their own, but PXE boot them and give them openmosix and suddenly you have a little supercomputer.

How about an Asterisk box? MythTV? A DHCP server? A TFTP server? Mail servers? Web servers? DNS servers? BNC servers? Streaming media servers? Onion routers? Nessus daemons? IRC daemons? Just to name a few.  All of it can be run on the same linux box for free, in a matter of minutes.  I can't just go into the basement, take out a computer, and stick Windows Server 2003 on it.  I don't have the $XXXX it costs to buy and use it.

Not to mention the sudden usability of old hardware.  I pulled 2 Pentium MMX laptops out of the trash.  It's either Windows 95 on that, which is unusable for anything modern, or Damn Small Linux, which is perfectly usable and actually speedy on 32mb of ram.

What about the embedded space?  Linux on a WRT54G, or a $10 Wifi enabled instant messanging toy from Walmart, or my old Pocket PC?  It's all the Linux kernel, and the same apps, utilities, and command syntax is used on all of it.

How about LiveCDs.  It's nice to be able to throw together some hardware, stick in a CD, and have an OS ready and usable with no hard drive use.

And once you start using screen sessions, you can never go back to the way you used to use computers.

Linux is growing every year for a good reason.

Edit:  About your OOo compatibility issue, I suggest updating to the latest version.  I have yet to experience any problems between the Linux and Windows ports of OOo.

Edit #2:  Aside from Photoshop and gaming, I have yet to see a reason to use Windows.