Open letter to Microsoft: It's time for a single version of Windows
Summary: Microsoft has announced that the official launch date of Windows 7 will be October 22. Between now and then, the software juggernaut still has time to fix the product's biggest problem: too many versions. It's time for one version of Windows.
An Open Letter to Microsoft:
Windows XP did a great thing. It united two operating systems - the Windows 9x codebase and the Windows NT codebase (including Windows 2000). I would argue that the move to unify and standardize on one version of Windows was the primary reason for the almost-universal adoption of Windows XP by businesses, especially in the United States.
Simplification and standardization have always been powerful forces in the technology world, but today they have become even more valuable because buyers are deluged with a flood of choices, even when they have the simplest goals. And, today, the truth is that users and companies don't want to think about the operating system. They simply want the OS to work smoothly and get out of the way.
For the 88% of computer users whose machines are powered by Microsoft Windows, upgrading to the latest version - or even choosing the right computer to buy - got a lot more confusing in 2007 with the release of Windows Vista because it was sold in four versions: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate.
This was one of the major drawbacks that led to the failure of Vista (I've previously written about the other reasons) and I certainly hoped that this would be one of the mistakes corrected in Windows 7. Unfortunately, it's gotten worse. There are now six planned versions of Windows 7: Starter Edition, Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
With the official launch of Windows 7 looming on October 22, I would strongly encourage a change of course. Flatten the whole strategy and offer a single version of Windows 7 for $50. There's still time to get this right and doing it has the potential to greatly simplify computing for both consumers and businesses and ultimately increase Windows sales.
The single version of Windows 7 should be based on the operating system that's currently called Home Premium. It's time to bring an end to the division between Windows for the home and Windows for business. While the division existed in Windows XP, and before that in the split between Windows 9x and Windows NT/2000, there's never been a better time to end it because the gray area between the two versions is growing.
The additional business functionality that organizations need for networking and security in large computer networks should be sold separately as an "Enterprise Feature Pack" and tied to the deployment of Windows Server (a completely separate product that is not part of the one version of Windows 7 that I'm suggesting). A lot of the additional functionality in the professional version of Windows is tied to integration with Windows Server, such as Group Policy and domain membership.
Most sizable organizations and their IT departments are going to buy all of this extra business functionality as part of volume licensing agreements such as Software Assurance (just like they do now), so having a single version of Windows 7 wouldn't actually be much of a change for them.
However, it would be a major change for the 5.3 million small businesses in the United States with 20 employees or less (that's 89% of all businesses, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). Small businesses often end up with a mix of the home and professional Windows systems. That's because many of their laptop and desktop machines are purchased from retailers such as Best Buy and Office Depot (and often loaded with the home OS), while others are purchased online from companies such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard and loaded with professional versions of Windows.
These small businesses don't usually have IT departments, but instead rely on tech-savvy managers to wear the IT hat or hire local IT consultants to serve as a resource. As a result, they don't typically have a long-term IT strategy in place and don't always have a good idea of which version of Windows to buy on a new PC - or may not have much choice if they are buying a system at a retail location. Then they have to cobble together a network of machines with different versions of Windows as their business grows and they evolve into a larger company.
But, small businesses aren't the only ones who would benefit from a single version of Windows. As the line between work and personal life continues to blur, it creates a larger gray area where the needs of users can fall between home and professional use.
Full-time telecommuters and employees who work from home part-time are both growing trends, and they involve workers buying their own PCs or using home PCs to access corporate systems. Sometimes these users even get stipends from their employers to purchase their own PCs. Should these users buy systems with the home or professional version of Windows installed? Similarly, we have companies like Citrix that are experimenting with programs that give employees a stipend and allow them to purchase their own computers rather than getting a PC from the company's IT department. These employees face the same dilemma of selecting the right version of Windows for them. It's time to put an end to that confusion.
While I realize that most PCs that are currently running Windows got it pre-installed from a new computer or had it installed in a standardized way by IT, there is the potential for more upgrades than ever with Windows 7. In fact, it has the potential to be the most widely-upgraded Windows of all time, due to the sheer number of users and businesses who either skipped Windows Vista altogether or would like nothing better than to migrate off of it.
In all fairness, the biggest problem with Vista is an image problem - as the Mojave Experiment clearly depicted. Windows 7 is a simpler Windows that actually strips out functionality and applications from Vista in order to make the OS leaner, faster, and a better fit on older hardware. Windows 7 also makes subtle changes under the hood to address some of Vista's sluggishness and bugginess.
As I recently wrote, there's nothing groundbreaking in Windows 7, but the speed and stability improvements will make it an attractive upgrade if only because it does a better job of getting out of the way. With the recession slowing down new PC sales and a U.S. market highly saturated with PCs that are still very useful, the Windows 7 upgrade market could be massive - but only if it's easy to understand for users and simplifies life for businesses. That's why it's time for a single version of Windows 7.
As such, I submit this appeal in the same spirit that Bill Gates did in his Open Letter to Hobbyists in 1976.
Jason Hiner Editor in Chief, TechRepublic
UPDATED: On Twitter, Rodney Buike pointed out that Microsoft now offers Enterprise and Starter editions of Windows Vista. That means that Vista and Windows 7 both have six versions.
See also: Ed Bott's From Starter to Ultimate: What's really in each Windows 7 edition?
For more insights on Microsoft, Windows 7, and other tech topics, follow my Twitter stream at twitter.com/jasonhiner
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
One Windows to rule them all........
Amen! One complete version - one reasonable price
If you plan to release a new Windows every third year anyway, why not get a larger portion of the public to upgrade every time? Their current approach makes NO sense because it encourages people to skip upgrades because of crazy pricing, crippled-version support issues, and mass market confusion.
Exactly right
Imagine one reasonably priced version of Windows that you could put on anything. Desktop, laptop, netbook.
It won't happen because MS management is out of touch with reality. You're right someone thought of it and that someone got told they were naive.
What you call greed I call fiduciary responsibility
If management goes against this strategy based on an open letter from some ZDnet bloggers, I can guarantee you the board will be up in arms and those responsible will be ousted from the company. Microsoft is a publicly traded company and it is in their [i]duty[/i] to work in the best interest of their shareholders, not their customers.
This applies to [i]any[/i] company. Apple does the same exact thing, I guarantee you. Except their pricing model takes into account different demographics, customers who buy exclusively Apple hardware at a certain frequency. It just so happens their model spits out the number $130 for OSX. Apple also has tiered pricing; it's reflected at the hardware level instead of the software level.
Any comparison between MS and Apple pricing that does not take into account that the OS is tied to the hardware is fundamentally flawed and should be immediately ignored.
Futher it's obvious why Apple doesn't tier OS X; their market consists almost entirely of home users who all have similar needs. Microsoft serves homes all the way to the largest corporations and governments of the world, and these users have drastically different needs, thus they need for different feature sets, which they in turn value differently (Enterprise users are willing to pay much more for the features they want than home users, etc.).
RE: Open letter to Microsoft: It's time for a single version of Windows
88% marketshare for Windows desktop? Probably more like 95% of all desktops in use worldwide, maybe even higher.
And as soon as they do this
And in case you haven't noticed, there IS only one Windows 7. Just buy the lowest SKU you can legally get. If you need to enable more features, just whip out your credit card. You see, that is the fair thing to do. The unfair thing to do is to expect everybody to buy all the features YOU want just because that's what YOU want in an operating system.
Fair enough, but tell me this ...
It's all way too confusing and convoluted for users, small businesses, and even IT departments.
That's easy.
Easy: Since you have to upgrade to a similar edition, you upgrade to Windows 7 Professional.
[b]The Professional edition of Windows 7 has all of the features of the Home edition, including media center, playing movies, etc.[/b]
There's no more weird feature split like we had in Vista. The higher editions have all of the features of the lower ones.
If you [b]really[/b] want to go to the Home edition for some odd reason, you can buy it and perform a clean install.
So because of one relatively rare hitch you want to scrap the whole thing?
In fact think about it, in your situation either way you go you'd be needing the higher cost of upgrade. If there was only one version you wouldn't be upgrading to a Home version, you'd be upgrading to a Pro version, which is what you are trying to avoid in the first place. Whereas if we take it your way, people with Home versions would have to upgrade to Pro versions. So in the end you'd have the masses being forced to upgrade to a more expensive version while you would STILL need the more expensive version.
And yes I know you argued for the one version to be Home, to which I say GET REAL.
The point is ...
To be clear: I don't want the one version to be Home Edition. I just want it to be Windows. And then make the security and Windows Server add-ons in the Business/Professional/Enterprise edition should just be available as a Feature Pack.
How is that any less confusing?
And even if it were more confusing, that's a choice I'd readily make in exchange for customer choice. What you suggest is basically the same as offering only Home Premium (ok call it something else, but it's the same thing) and Ultimate. Well most businesses want the Professional version because they do not need all the extras in Ultimate. Why are you taking that choice away from them? Because three choices is that more confusing than two? Sorry, I'm not buying that.
Not Only Convuluted
matter is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. MS makes billions off of vendor
lockin and the obscene MS Office markup. The abusive and needless cripple-
ware version pricing schemes are evidence of MS's contempt for the consumer.
Server and desktop. Done. Fragmenting the consumer desktop space only
helps Microsoft, unable as they are to release an OS that isn't a bloatware
mess. Which MS then blames on the harried hardware vendors. A perfect
storm of mediocrity.
You opted to take advantage of a heavily discounted version of Windows
FWIW - Win7 Business includes MediaCenter, so should you wish to upgrade to Win7 Business, your daughter will be able to do all that you want.
Disagree.
We had Starter ediition, Home, Professional, Media Center, "N" for the Europeans, Tablet PC, 64 bit editions, and of course upgrade versions of most of the editions.
. . . and that's XP.
I say that's bull. The idea that we should be worried about all of the editions is, frankly, something ZDNet is inventing so that they have a story.
"The single version of Windows 7 should be based on the operating system that?s currently called Home Premium."
No way. As a developer and a power user, I've always needed some of the features of the business editions (like file permissions). I plan on getting Windows 7 Professional when it comes out.
"The additional business functionality that organizations need for networking and security in large computer networks should be sold separately as an ?Enterprise Feature Pack? and tied to the deployment of Windows Server"
No way. How about the needs of power users or small businesses? They may want the business features, but have no desire to get Windows Server.
If you really think a single edition is realistic - I say it should be based on the Professional version, not one of the Home versions.
I agree...
I think their should be 4 basic versions: Home, Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
The reason is simple. Home users use their systems to watch movies, and play games. Give them Media Center, and DirectX support out of the box. Businesses don't need Media Center, and gaming support and as a general rule don't need them taking up space and memory. Often times, IT has to remove access to them to keep the users from goofing off as much. Enterprise is more for Microsoft then businesses, as this is how they roll out VLK Windows without the widespread abuse that WinXP corporate took. Those VLK keys were everywhere. Using the KMS system helps to stem most of that, and allow MS to lower prices (whether they do or not, who knows, but they can). And Ultimate, what can I say, developers need access to everything, and some users want it all. Some businesses want it all to. So give it to them, but to cut costs, and eliminate confusion it should be special order only for those that are technical enough to know they need it. This would basically put one version on the consumer shelf (Home), and the rest available for purchase online, with Professional out front, and Enterprise/Ultimate available on special order pages.
That is my opinion.
A slight change to that . . .
Well, I'd still make them available, even if not turned on by default.
I'd do this because there's a power user market and a business-at-home market. There are many of us who want some of the nice "advanced" stuff like file permissions and the MMC, but also want access to multimedia and games.
I do [b]NOT[/b] want the "if you choose one or the other, either way you lose features you want" crap that was in Vista. No way. I do not want to go back to that again.
Windows 7 is IMHO doing this right.
Undo your change, and added another change.
I'd do this because there's a power user market and a business-at-home market. There are many of us who want some of the nice "advanced" stuff like file permissions and the MMC, but also want access to multimedia and games."[/i]
That would be addressed with the Ultimate option that I mentioned. As I said, it would be for developers, power users, and businesses that feel they need it.
With the 4 basic versions, everyone is covered.
Now I will add this, prices for the different versions should be essentially the same. You're getting the same OS, but with different features loaded. The consumer edition should be cheapest, but their shouldn't be substantial increase in price for the different business editions, and Ultimate.
I think it would be fair to say something along these lines would be sufficient:
Home: $100 upgrade/$200 full
Professional: $150 upgrade/$250 full
Ultimate: $200 upgrade/$250 full
Life really can be simple, if people would just let it be.
nah
At a seriously high price? As if the price on Windows isn't high enough already. No thanks. Just do it how Windows 7 is doing it.
. . . and IMHO there's nothing simpler than "the higher stuff has all of the lower stuff, plus a bit more."
If you want to remove features you don't want, guess what? You can. Windows 7 adds back a lot of the ability to disable/remove stuff like games and multimedia a business may not want.
I think you missed the point.
Having to go back and disable things is counter-productive. Would be a lot easier if they just offered versions that fit the model they are aiming them for. Just because you WANT everything in Windows shouldn't mean IT has to remove half of it.
All YOU have to do is buy Ultimate. The prices I laid out are cheaper then the what is currently offered with Vista in most cases.
Some people would have to make adjustments, but it would be for the better if the versions and pricing were more simple.
It really is that simple.
Can't satisfy everybody.
There are all kinds of models, so no such thing.
"All YOU have to do is buy Ultimate."
Right, at an Ultimate price, I'm sure.
"The prices I laid out . . ."
Are not the prices Microsoft will use. I guarantee it.
There are some things that are REALLY businesslike that I could care less about, like active directory. But - there are also things that SHOULD frankly perhaps be in lower priced versions of Windows, like NTFS file permissions.
"Some people would have to make adjustments, but it would be for the better if the versions and pricing were more simple."
Having to decide between games and file permissions just because I don't want to pay the Ultimate price for the Ultimate edition is frankly not simple, and you can say that until you are blue in the face and it won't come true.