I don’t get it.

The main argument I’ve heard against maintaining one single version of Windows 7 is that Microsoft has a ton of customers, nearly 1 billion, and they all have different needs.  That much makes perfect sense to me.  Unlike Apple all of these people are running various hardware, they’re using their machines for various reasons, I got it.  So why can’t there be just one box copy of Windows 7?

One of the cool things about Vista is that you’ve got every version on one disc.  In order to upgrade you didn’t have to buy a whole different version, you just had to buy the license and you could upgrade from your current disc.  All of the install files for each version of Vista are contained on every disc.  The license is what makes your version different, not the disc.  So…since we can put all of the files for Windows 7 Super Mega Edition on every disc and just compartmentalize the installation….why not just have one version?  Let the user decide if they want Windows 7 Basic, Home or Professional while they’re installing.  Better yet let OEMs figure that out ahead of time.

Unfortunately it seems as though there will be many versions of Windows 7.  An Ultimate version is confirmed.  There’s a starter version (read Basic), Home (read Home Premium), and Business (Professional).  Hopefully that’s it.  I really, really, really want to believe that Microsoft has learned a lot from Vista.  This is one of the areas in which they have the opportunity to get things right with 7.

Oh well, I guess I still have great pricing to hope for.

Steve Jobs, Windows 7 and the Palm Pre

Windows 7 pricing

I was watching Leo Laporte’s live stream this past weekend, and he mentioned something that is very important when it comes to the release of Microsoft’s new Windows 7.  Pricing and bundling.  There was a lot of hubbub made about Windows Vista’s many different skews, whether Home Basic, Premium, Business, or Ultimate (am I missing any?).  It caused mass confusion for consumers.  Compared to Apple’s approach of one single version of the OS it was just way too onvoluted.  Another obvious comparison to Apple would be OS pricing.  How much was OS X Leopard at launch?  $129.  Vista?  It’s currently $199.95 for the Basic, near-worthless edition and all the way up to $319.95 for Ultimate.

This is my plea to Microsoft – please take a page out of Apple’s book and make Windows 7 relatively inexpensive, and do your best to release as few editions as you can.  I think that an $80 upgrade fee from Vista to Windows 7 would be perfect.  A cheaper cost, especially considering Vista’s tarnished name and the general eagerness of users to move on to the next version of Windows, would do quite well (and that’s not even mentioning the economic incentives for not charging an arm and a leg).  But that’s not all.

It has been said that Windows 7 is basically just what Windows Vista should have been originally.  Having used 7 I agree.  That doesn’t mean that Windows 7 isn’t better than Vista, but it’s immediately evident to anyone who has used both that they’re cut from the same cloth.  Microsoft would do well to acquiesce to their customers by admitting that Windows 7 is more or less a fix, upgrade, or patch, and to do so would only require modest pricing.  Now if you’ve read my blog for any amount of time you’ll know that I have nothing against Vista, but 7 is Vista done right.  Let me say that again: Windows 7 is Vista done right.  Don’t spurn your customers (especially those who have already adopted Vista) by giving Windows 7 the typically expensive Microsoft operating system price tag.

It’s time for Microsoft to rebuild their tarnished reputation, whether that reputation is legitimate or not.  I can think of no better way to start such a project than by giving us a good deal.  A cheap entry price will get Windows 7 into the hands of the users that want it most as quickly as possible, and Microsoft can begin to cultivate brand loyalty in the operating system market again.  That’s what they need more than anything right now.  Market share is one thing, brand loyalty is completely different – just look at Apple.  So then, what do I think is a good pricing model for Windows 7?  I already mentioned around $80 for an upgrade.  So with an $80 upgrade I’d have to say about $150 for a full retail copy of the operating system would make sense.

Please Micorsoft, it’s not time to be greedy.  Make your customers happy and you’ll be grateful that you did so in the end.

The seeds of change have been sewn

It shouldn’t be news to anyone at this point.  Here in the United States we’ve made some groundbreaking change in the hope for a better tomorrow.  After months of nail-biting, finger-pointing, and heinous attack ads we can finally move forward and put this dark time behind us.  I am, of course, talking about the unveiling of the new Windows 7 at PDC2008.  Did you expect something else? =)

I have to admit that the first time I saw screenshots from PDC2008 of what Windows 7 would look like, I was kind of concerned.  The UI is very blue.  The toolbar has been reworked; it’s now larger and reminds me of some of the older distributions of KDE linux I used to mess with.  For some reason when I see the new Windows 7 clock in the lower right hand corner I have flashbacks to Knoppix, and the horribly ugly digital clock they had set as default.  It also looks a bit like an operating system that may have been specifically developed for UMPC or tablet devices.  Obviously these observations are completely arbitrary because I haven’t actually played with Windows 7, but those were just some of my initial reactions.

After further examination though, I’m really starting to understand the new direction they’ve taken and am growing to like the new taskbar.  The taskbar as it was really isn’t that much different in Windows 7 when you think about it.  There has always been the ability to add little quick-launch items in the taskbar (I know it was in XP and Vista, can’t remember any further back), but now Microsoft has decided to expand that functionality.  First, they made the quick launch icons much larger – about the size of standard icons you’d find on your desktop.  Then they added the ability to easily “drag and drop” new applications to the taskbar so it’s easy to customize with whatever applications you want to have available.  Obviously these icons serve as launch and switching points, so in effect the new taskbar works similarly to how alt+tab works in previous versions of Windows.

Another cool feature is when you open up multiple windows inside the same application.  For example if I’m working in Word and I have two documents open, if I point my cursor to the Word icon in the taskbar I’ll get two preview thumbnails, one for each window.  A similar feature is already in Windows Vista, but now as I said it works for multiple windows and also it allows you to interact with the application from the thumbnail.  You can do things like open/close the window obviously, but more interesting is the new feature called Aero Peak.  Basically what happens is, if you have 2 windows open, say 2 very similar Word documents, you can hover your cursor over one of them and all of the other windows on the desktop will turn into glass.  This allows you to get a good look at whichever window you want without having to physically cycle through the windows on the desktop.  My only question about this feature is what happens when your taskbar gets filled with a bunch of applications and you have a lot of windows open…seems like things could get cluttered in a hurry but that’s yet to be seen.

This version of Windows is definitely an aesthetic upgrade.  I don’t mean that in a condescending way, as if to imply that the only updates to the OS are visual, but they obviously want things to look nice for the user on top of having new features to play with.  The new taskbar integrates into the look of the UI very nicely, and Aero glass is definitely back in full effect.  That’s cool with me, I always liked the look of Aero.  I think that the new look will lure in users as long as the OS is stable and efficient with system resources at the same time.  All indications say that Windows 7 will run on much more modest hardware, including the likes of netbooks.  That’s a huge deal because the birth of this netbook craze has really pushed people to move back to Windows XP because of Vista’s hardware requirements.  According to a laptopmag.com article (click here to read) Windows 7 only uses up 512mb of memory.  It seems that Windows 7 has been sculpted with the Atom-based system in mind, which is good.

So in the end I’m kind of excited for Windows 7.  It’s much too early to build expectations, but I like the direction that the project is headed.  Rumor has it that Microsoft may get Windows 7 out the door as early as June 2009, but I’m expecting sometime in 2010 or later.  That tends to be the trend, especially if you look at Vista’s development time, and I don’t want them to rush anything.  This is a very important release.  One major release mired in negativity from the general public (Vista) is easy to rebound from, but make a habit out of it by rushing the next version and things will get difficult.

As a side note, if you’re feeling the Windows 7 love you can grab the PDC Windows 7 desktop wallpaper by clicking here. Is it weird that I’m using it on my iMac?

Now Playing:
The Real McKenzies – Wild Mountain Thyme
Fallout 3