[Engadget] Microsoft outs three flavors of Windows 8: Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro and Windows RT - Page 7

Lol. This is going in my sig too. Found the post too.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1006327/why-do-people-rma-their-ssds-privacy-risks#post_13369699

Volume licensing is volume licensing. It doesn't need a different version of the OS.
Why gimp the OS because you think the majority of the customers are too dumb to use features later on as they learn their way around? Now they have to buy the OS again just to get the features that should've been there in the first place. Just like Vista SP7, selling three different versions that set limits on the amount of RAM you can use is just wrong to anyone not on the other end ripping people off to pad the coffers.

Enterprise version has different licensing agreements and costs. Like 1000 licenses for X amount of dollars.
Edited by Riou - 4/20/12 at 12:26am

How is that any worse than charging an obscene markup on Foxconn hardware?

Trick question, it isn't.

Enterprise is different from the other versions because it includes features useful for centralized management and control.

Here are the features of Pro vs Non-Pro:

• BitLocker and BitLocker To Go
• Boot from VHD
• Client Hyper-V
• Domain Join
• Encrypting File System
• Group Policy
• Remote Desktop (host)

RDP and encryption are features that a very minority of endusers might use... but they can use other 3rd party software to replicate these features.


Would you like to hear a "secret"? Features cost MS money to develop. Each feature costs at least a half dozen staff working for 6-24 months and each person costs $100K+. MS has to make their investment back. The differentiation is really not that bad. Why does Asus sell different motherboard models? Why does G.Skill sell different clocked kits? Why is there a HD6950 and HD6970?

This isn't any different than day one DLCs for games. You can try to justify holding back features that are already developed to price gouge customers if you want but it looks shady.

The fact that Vista SP7 starter only lets you run in 32bit and use 2GB of RAM(great for that 1.5GB of RAM usage you mentioned earlier) and two other versions also set limits on RAM is a prime example of Microsoft nickel and diming customers. Since Microsoft thinks most of their customers are too dumb to need or use extra features or RAM, they force them to buy another copy of the OS in order to fix the problem.

Every company pays their employees to code, so don't give me the excuse that only Microsoft has to justify paying their employees. Some companies prefer to exploit their customers for profit more than others. EA and Microsoft are good examples of that. History has shown that if you offer a lower price you actually sell more and if you offer apps DRM-free you find more people buying legitimately than pirating.

Having to use 3rd party software or tweaks to fix inherent design problems doesn't make it look any better either.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 4/20/12 at 1:43am

Does AMD and Nvidia nickel and dime customers for disabling features in their GeForce/Radeon cards?

It is not shady... it is called differentiation and is a very basic economic technique. Most companies do it... USPS 1st class vs priority vs overnight.

You omit the fact that the Starter version is CHEAPER. Consumers have the choice to spend less to get less.
Or MS thinks customers are smart enough to read the box or check the website.

Also, you can pay for an upgrade instead of a new OS since you did not know about clearly stated features.
If there were less features, then MS would have to employee less people to develop and test. Therefore, production and support costs would be reduced.

All companies make decisions and (ideally) market forces determine sales. If you don't like it, don't buy it. EA games and MS OSes are different. Why? Because post-sale support and patches are much more expensive with an OS. In fact, think about it.... How much time/money/manhours does it take to make a game vs OS? How much more does Windows sell for than a game? 2-3 times?

Furthermore, game content and OS features are two different things. With games, you can play the additional levels/weapons/etc if you want. With OS features, you generally do not just play with features. Why/how would a general consumer use Domains, Group Policy, or Boot from VHD? They would not unless they had a server running. If a consumer has a home server, then they are most definitely educated enough to read the box.

Sale prices and sales numbers are only two variables of a more complex equation.
Sure, it empowers the customers with choice.

GF100 = GeForce GTX480, GeForce GTX470, GeForce GTX 465, Tesla M2090, Quadro 6000





You seem to have an issue with how the way the world works... Most companies do differentiation even if you realize it or not. You assume that you are entitled to all features just because they exist. Would it make you feel better if MS offered one version of the OS and charged separately for the additional features? They would make the features a separate download and call them something else? It is like complaining that Windows 8 does not come with Visual Studio 11, Office, SQL Server, ect. MS makes all these products so why aren't they included!??!?!!?
Edited by DuckieHo - 4/20/12 at 2:19am

How does forcing you to use 3rd party apps to fix flaws in the OS or missing features become empowering a customer with choices? That's something I'd expect to hear from a marketing department, not an end user...

You seem to enjoy day one DLC type of companies. Most would think it wrong to exploit people. You aren't always given an option as to which OS you get when purchasing a pre-made machine. Most people don't even know the different between the versions. They expect that if the time comes to add more RAM to their machine, that they won't be artificially limited by the OS as to how much RAM they can actually use. This isn't the same thing as offering higher performing hardware.

A similar circumstance is how Intel wants to charge you $50 to unlock features your CPU can already do.


How anyone can try to justify these types of actions is beyond me. The OS is already developed. Holding back features because you want to exploit your customers isn't empowering them with choices. That's one less choice they have.

Trying to hide behind the "it's too complex" remark doesn't change the fact that selling software for less actually generates more total profit. Steam sales is a good example that takes advantage of this. You open up the market to a much wider audience than beforehand when you lower the price point. Having a monopoly on the market when your only other choices are OSX which won't work with your hardware and *nix which isn't feasible to the average person certainly allows them to sell for whatever they want though.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 4/20/12 at 2:44am

1) No one ever said anything about not fixing flaws.
2) These are feature sets that are not commonly used by the mainstream.

Again, this is not an issue of DLC.... DLC extend content. This is about feature sets.

No, but you have an option to upgrade an OS.

The RAM limit issue is moot especially with W8. As for W7, the lowest retail version support 16GB.
Of course it is not the same, most people can benefit from higher performance. This is about feature sets which is used or is not used. Higher clocked CPUs or more cache is about the ability to provide more. Two different things.
This happens every single day everywhere.

Companies differentiate their markets to increase margins and they offset costs for different features.
UPS, USPS, FedEx do it buy offering different shipping speeds and features (i.e. tracking, insurance).
GPU/CPU companies do it through binning.


When you are think you are talking about the OS.... you actually are not talking about an OS.

The OS itself is the basic resource manager. Anything about that is a added value feature. In *nix, you get the kernel and then you can select what other applications/features you want to add on top of the core OS. Not all these features come pre-packaged with the OS.
There are a number of flaws in your argument.
1) OS upgrade/replacement is not something to take lightly. With most software, you can install and uninstall easily... most people are capable of this. Even if you gave Windows away for free, not everyone would want to upgrade or would be capable of it.

2) Lowering the cost of technical software does not guarantee wider adoption. If AutoCAD was cheaper, would Autodesk make that much more money?

3) You are attempting to apply video games/media sales to much more complex OS sales. Media is different because there are little/zero long-term costs to the seller. You sell someone a game/movie/music and there are limited support calls or long term maintenance. With OS, the company has to provide much much longer term support. Don't believe me? Linux is free, right? If so, why does Red Hat charge $120 per year for workstation support? ($299 for support less $180 for self support)
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html

4) MS does not own desktop hardware. OSX does work on the same hardware (mostly).

5) Why isn't *nix feasible for the average person? The first reason is application compatibility but this is less and less of an issue. The main reason is there is limited post-sales support (go read around if you don't believe me). Most people want to talk to someone and not check out forums. You can buy *nix with support. Best Buy sells it for $20 with 60 support. You can check RHEL cost from the link above.

Extending your logic.... All Windows OS related features should be available all the time. That would mean W8 should include all the feature sets of Server 2012 and Server 2012 HPC? While you're at it, let us add in all the feature sets that MS sells like Office Suite or SQL Server because they all are MS products right? How dare they not sell you everything in one complete package?

You are attempting to single out MS for charging money for a differentiated product...
http://www.untangle.com/store/ <-- Charges for additional feature sets.
http://www.mathworks.com/products/ <-- Charges for additional toolkits.
http://students.autodesk.com/?nd=download_center <-- Charges for additional packages.
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html <-- Charges by hardware and socket
http://www.sybase.com/products <--- Charges by host OS/cores
http://www.novell.com/licensing/ <-- Charges by buyer

Note: Apple does limited software differentiation because they do sell the OS/hardware as a package. The software costs are already rolled into the total costs.
Edited by DuckieHo - 4/20/12 at 8:22am