Microsoft Announces Six Flavors For Windows 7

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well the big story that everyone been waiting for and that being how many versions of Windows 7 will be out there and the magic number is 6. Of course, everyone is asking why especially since the the 6 flavors of Vista hell were out there but it seems that are a bit more organized as to who gets what.

As for the break down it is between Developed nations verses undevelope or currently being developed nations and so this little guide will tell which version is for you.

Develop Nations
-USA
-European Union
-Japan
-Russia
-China

You get the idea which countries that are fully develop technological countries

As for undeveloped and developing technological nations

-Parts of Africa
-Parts of Asia
-Parts of Middle East

Basically countries that slowly building their computer infrastructure up to meet standards like the US, European Union and Japan.

As for the versions Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Ultimate/Enterprise go to the develop nations, while undeveloped and developing nations get Windows 7 Home Basic and Windows 7 Starter Edition (With some restrictions).

Also in another bit of news is the upgrade process and the fact that now all you need is a upgrade key and instead of spending an hour or so upgrading it will only take minutes. Now odds are I think, is that features will be lock and invisiable until the upgrade but that is only a guess since more information will come up about all that. So one question that is left is pricing and I am sure everyone is biting their nails for that.




SOURCE
http://www.pcworld.com/article/158861/Windows_7.html
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/?p=659

[ragav.bpl 0]

So i hope in India and Pakistan windows 7 ultimate version is not going to launched .................Is that right but why is microsoft doing that why is it not launching this version and as vista was also launched in India and all of its version were launched.......BTW this is the most stable and best version of the windows developed so far i used the beta version and is quite satisfied with the performanceBetter stabilityBetter security and many more best features........I am eagerly waiting for its launchAnd when is it going to be launched by the way..........

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well with India being the epicenter of computer technology support around the world I would assume the biggest tech sectors there will get all versions of it. Since India, what I know, is a develop nation in some parts, other parts are still developing and so it would have to depend on a countries status really, but again since most of the tech support is coming there, India will most likely get all 6 versions to use.

[ragav.bpl 0]

Ohhh!!!!! Kewl quick response.......mateand what about pakistan and all those countriesAnd which would think would be the most best version in terms of quality and performance... I know that ultimate would be the best but it's hardware requirement is high so if you have a normal machine which version according to you should be ran

[jlhaslip 4]

I assume that Canada would be handled the same as the United States since it is so similar to the USA in development?It would be a pity to miss out on the release party.Boy, 2009 looks exciting for Microsoft with Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 8 looking to be released this year. Wonder if they will be launched together?

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

I assume that Canada would be handled the same as the United States since it is so similar to the USA in development?It would be a pity to miss out on the release party.

Boy, 2009 looks exciting for Microsoft with Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 8 looking to be released this year. Wonder if they will be launched together?

be willing to bet my last $ that they will be. why? think about it. why put IE 7 in the new a new OS when as soon as IE 8 would come out say a week or 2 later everyone will upgrade. Common sence tells you they will be together. But then again it's Microsoft. Just hope they have all the bugs worked out of the IE before they put it into Win 7 and turn it into a vista.

[Saint_Michael 3]

No IE 8 and Windows 7 won't be release at the same time because Windows 7 has to wait for IE8 to go gold since IE8 will be the default browser. So anywhere from a month to 6 months after IE 8 comes out then will Windows 7 because that way it gives many developers a chance to update their websites or be well into progress into updating their websites, thus the move for IE8RC1. Since Microsoft says that not to many changes will be happening between IE8RC versions and the final version, since it all about fixing any holes, web standards problems or hopefully memory issues.I will say this though I will be the first to download IE8 since the browser is a lot better then IE7, ug I wish Microsoft soft Mozilla's extensions idea or rather a better set up for it .

[pasten 0]

And here I have some post release announcement:

IE 8 severe vulnerability patch fix 

Windows 7 critical update released 

Hope that doesn't happen. I think this time Microsoft would patch up with thier past failure and move on. I will continue using XP as long it does the work for me. These days I am a bit more comfortable with Linux. So in future, I wouldn't need to have any expectations from MS. BTW do we need to have Windows 7 to try out IE8?

Update:
Here are the clear package details: Different Windows 7 Packages. The the thing which I don't like about MS in thier Windows starter version is, they limit the open applications. Its like handicapping us for the price we pay.

Edited February 4, 2009 by pasten (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

...that way it gives many developers a chance to update their websites or be well into progress into updating their websites, thus the move for IE8RC1. Since Microsoft says that not to many changes will be happening between IE8RC versions and the final version, since it all about fixing any holes, web standards problems or hopefully memory issues.

Though i don't expect Internet Explorer 8 to pass the Acid 3 test upon its stable release, i don't think many developers would require changing their code structure. They should have done so already and should have added stuff to prevent future complications by now. Microsoft should try to force an Internet Explorer 8 upgrade, if not for the users, then for the website developers. It's annoying knowing that some people out there are still using Internet Explorer 6. Plus, i wouldn't expect Microsoft to postpone something if it is considered good enough to be released if it'll get them some extra income—just doesn't feel like something they'd do. And if we look at their history, like with the Xbox, Vista and the Zune, even if it can become unstable over time or if it lacks support for something, they'd still release it.

[mahesh2k 0]

Looks like more of discrimination game from Microsoft. Why countries like Australia, India, Canada are not listed? Anyway that could be another reason for those undeveloped nations to move to Linux. Or some people will flock down to those Torrents .Windows 7 is better vista, file-copying is faster than vista and many other problems will be taken care of for sure. Even Ubuntu SABDFL "Mark Shuttleworth" considers a fair competition from Windows with this version. I'm sure companies like Dell, HP, Compaq will continue to duck customers from undeveloped nations by distributing Windows Basic and starter edition without cutting costs for their machines. All in all, I consider this Flavor discrimination in favor of Linux. So FOSS folks, let's take advantage of this.

[rayzoredge 2]

Though i don't expect Internet Explorer 8 to pass the Acid 3 test upon its stable release, i don't think many developers would require changing their code structure. They should have done so already and should have added stuff to prevent future complications by now. Microsoft should try to force an Internet Explorer 8 upgrade, if not for the users, then for the website developers. It's annoying knowing that some people out there are still using Internet Explorer 6. Plus, i wouldn't expect Microsoft to postpone something if it is considered good enough to be released if it'll get them some extra incomejust doesn't feel like something they'd do. And if we look at their history, like with the Xbox, Vista and the Zune, even if it can become unstable over time or if it lacks support for something, they'd still release it.

I believe Internet Explorer 8 fails miserably with Acid3... I remember seeing preliminary test results with it. Wikipedia's Acid 3 article shows the despairing results for such a promising browser, with Safari, Chrome, Opera, and Firefox leading the pack with scores of 80 up to 100 (as opposed to the measly 20 that IE8RC1 fails with). However, Microsoft in defense had this to say for its low score:

 

"The ACID3 test is a collection of interesting tests, spread across a large set of standards. Some of those standards will see improvements in IE8 - in fact, IE8 already improves on IE7's score - but we are focused on the most important features and standards to make web developers' lives easier. The ACID3 test does not map directly to that goal."

It would make sense with that statement why the score is so low, but at the same time, Acid3 checks to see how well a browser adheres to standards.

 

This gets even stranger with compatibility with web pages designed for previous versions... in theory, the concept sounds good, but at the same time, it promotes a bit of "living in the past" for web developers stubborn in not wanting to redesign their work to accomodate the newest release of IE8.

 

Internet Explorer 8 was promoted by Microsoft as having stricter adherence to W3C described web standards than Internet Explorer 7. As a result, as in every IE version before it, some percentage of web pages coded to the behavior of the older versions would break in IE8. This would have been a repetition of the situation with IE7, which having fixed a lot of bugs from IE6, broke pages which used the IE6 bugs to work around its non-compliance. This was especially a problem for offline HTML documents, which may not have been updatable (e.g. stored on a read-only medium, such as a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM).

 

To avoid this situation, Microsoft proposed Version Targeting whereby a page could be authored to a specific version of a browser using the X-UA-Compatible declaration either as a meta element or in the HTTP headers.^[35] A browser with a newer version than what the page has been coded for would emulate the behavior of the older version so that the assumptions the page made about the browser's behavior holds true.

 

Microsoft proposed that a page with a doctype that triggers standards mode (or almost standards mode) in IE7 would, by default, trigger IE7-like behavior, called "standards mode" (now called "strict mode") in IE8 and future versions of IE. The new features of IE8, along with the breaking changes, could be enabled by explicitly using the X-UA-Compatible declaration to trigger what Microsoft called the "IE8 standards mode" (now called "standards mode"). Microsoft's reasoning was that by making the choice to opt for standards compliance explicit, pages that do not want the behavior will not trigger the IE8 standards mode.^[35] IE8 standards mode could also be triggered by the HTML5 doctype. Doctypes that trigger quirks mode in IE7 will continue to do so in IE8.

 

The proposal was met with much controversy. Jeremy Keith, writing for A List Apart, felt that tying pages to browser versions would greatly hinder progressive development as championed by web standards.^[44]Håkon Wium Lie, Chief Technology Officer of Opera Software, authors of the Opera web browser, stated in an article for The Register that the move was an example of monopolistic behaviour due to Microsoft's dominating position in the web browser and operating system markets.^[45]

 

Peter Bright of Ars Technica claimed that the idea of using a meta tag to pick a specific rendering mode fundamentally misses the point of standards-based development, but positioned the issue as one of idealism versus pragmatism in web development, noting that not all of the Web is actively maintained, and that, "demanding that web developers update sites to ensure they continue to work properly in any future browser version is probably too much to ask."^[46]

 

On March 3, 2008, Dean Hachamovitch announced that Microsoft had changed their minds, opting instead to make the "IE8 standards mode" (now called "standards mode") the default in IE8 (i.e., pages with doctypes that trigger standards mode in IE7 as well as newer doctypes).^[34] Version targeting would still be present but now would be used to opt out of progressive development and use the IE7 standards mode (now called "strict mode"). While this move was praised by many of the same people who had criticized Microsoft's original choice, including Microsoft's competitors,^[47] the subsequent release of Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 revealed that many web sites do not work in this new standards mode.

 

The result for IE 8 Beta 1 was that it could render three modes: "Quirks," "Strict," and "Standard." When there is an old DOCTYPE or when there is no DOCTYPE, IE renders it like IE5 would (quirks mode). When a special meta element or its corresponding HTTP header is included in a web page, IE8 will render that page like IE7 would (strict mode). Users can switch between the three modes with a few clicks.^[13]

Smart, but stupid. You take your pick... my opinion lies with both.

 

-

 

As for my opinion on having so many variants of Windows 7... I think it's just plain dumb, but maybe I'm not seeing it from the deployment level as clearly as the professionals making these kinds of decisions. The starter kit doesn't even make sense... with the limitations imposed on it, why would you even consider purchasing that particular flavor? If the answer to that is economy-friendly, rapid deployment on a fairly considerable amount of systems used for basic needs, why not look to any other Linux distribution that's free? Home Basic seems to make more sense, if the requirement is to have a Windows machine.

 

But then there's Home Premium, which is a whopping 3 features away from Home Basic with Aero, Touch, ability to create Homegroups, and apparently the ability to play "premium games." First off, you can include Aero and never have it enabled because your machine is too crappy. (If you force it, that's on you to deal with the lag and the stutter.) If your machine is crappy, you most likely won't be having multi-touch capability on your monitor (unless you like pairing state-of-the-art visuals with your crappy computer), so including Touch capability isn't going to kill anyone. The ability to make Homegroups apparently is a dealbreaker, but then again, if you're making a Homegroup, you probably have access to other PCs or devices... and since Home Basic is join-only, why would you get, let's say, three PCs with Home Premium when you can just have one and the other two to join with Home Basic? And since we have a crappy PC with no multi-touch capability and no ability to actually utilize Aero effectively, I would also imagine that you won't be playing "premium games" with it either. So including it in the package won't kill anyone. (Users can uninstall things anyway through this thing called Add/Remove Programs, I think.)

 

So bye-bye Starter and Home Basic. Useless.

 

Professional and Enterprise also need to merge to create what we have with XP Professional. Does it make sense for a "professional" to be without encryption, not to mention the extra features that Enterprise brings to the table? Enterprise just seems dumb to have all of this but not be able to create HomeGroups. So heck, let's make Professional/Enterprise, or just call it Professional. Then again, if you merge the two, you get Ultimate.

 

Whoa... wait, what?

 

So from my personal critique, we've brought six flavors of Windows down to two: Home Premium and Professional/Ultimate. You can ship most consumer PCs with Home Premium thanks to the arguments I've provided above, and for those who want to opt for more power, they can go with Professional/Ultimate. Businesses can look to Professional/Ultimate without a second thought as to what flavor of the six that Microsoft gives us they should get: Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate.

 

Wow.

 

Anyone else in agreement here?

Edited February 4, 2009 by rayzoredge (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Smart, but stupid. You take your pick... my opinion lies with both.

Thanks for providing outside proof for practically everything i've said. The only difference between what i've said and what you provided is that developers actually don't need to do much of anything with their current code. And reading the entire thing implies that Internet Explorer won't pass the Acid 3 Test until perhaps version 10 (which was something i was thinking about before you posted). If Internet Explorer would pass the Acid 3 test, though, and if all websites built based on standards, there shouldn't be any breakage if the Internet Explorer hacks only worked for Internet Explorer 7 and below. Let's consider Firefox: When Firefox 3 came out, was there any breakage with websites that designed their sites for Firefox 2 which passed validation? I can't see how, since Firefox 3 didn't remove standards, they added more support for it. It's like building a set of stairs to get from one floor to the next. If the stairs are incomplete, if some support is missing, then you can only go up a few steps until you add more steps. I'd have to agree with Peter Bright and H?kon Wium Lie, from a developers point of view who likes to see their site be fully cross-browser compatible, there's not much point objectively in not first seeking to meet standards.

Anyone else in agreement here?

Personally i'd hate to be forced to go with the starter set (yet that will be the case for some countries, apparently), let alone purchase anything Microsoft. I'ma go with what mahesh2k said, to just advertise Linux to these countries—they'd be better off. I mean, if they need such a limited operating system, that implies they don't have the kind of computers we have, therefore requiring an operating system that won't be a burden on their computers' resources while still capable of being customized greatly. I don't mind what Microsoft does with its operating system, so long as it reduces their monopoly.