Is this the perfect time to go open source?

[SgtM]

You tell me...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/windows-7-skus-announced-yes-your-worst-nightmare-has-come-to/

[crenn]

You tell me, I see no issue with the various versions, I just hope the cost is lower than Vista.

[CodyOdiOdi]

I think Microsoft sucks and I dislike them for being the most used OS out there.

[Datech]

I think Microsoft sucks and I dislike them for being the most used OS out there.

So does that mean if Debian distributions become the most used OS you will dislike them too? Do you dislike RedHat because they are the most used server OS?

Microsoft has an easy and familiar OS that to many people IS a computer. One of the smaller reasons behind Microsoft's corner on the market is that hardcore linux users are vocal snobs that end up deterring people from trying other things. Those same vocal snobs also dote on people who use Ubuntu because it isn't 'tru Linux'.

The majority of consumers want something that is easy. If people keep telling consumers that Linux is hard, they won't use it. Stop flaming Microsoft and actually list reasons why people should switch to Linux or Mac, just make sure one of them isn't "Because Linux has less versions than Microsoft."

Back to the topic: This different versions business plan is stupid. Any more than three marketable versions and you are asking for trouble. There should be a Home version marketed to consumers, one business version not mentioned on TV ads or in stores, and one netbook version not mentioned on TV ads or in stores. Problem solved, Windows 7 saves the day.

[crenn]

If you actually think and read about the versions, they do make sense. But are they a hassle for a consumer? Nope. Want to know why? Because on the CONSUMER level, they'll only see:
Home Basic
Home Premium
Professional
Ultimate

Oh wait, the same as Vista :P

[luciusad2004]

I was reading about this somewhere else and i don't think it's that big of a deal.

I read that all the average consumer is going to here about is
*Home premium
*Professional

Starter and Home basic aren't meant for mainstream sale but more for emerging markets and third world countries.

Enterprise is only avialable to corporate consumers so regular people don't need to worry about that and finally I read that Ultimate will be more geared towards power users and do it yourselfers who actually know to look for it.

Thats just what i read on gizmodo though.

Edit: Just to clarify, Even though i don't see this as a real problem, i do believe one base system would be much better. Sort of the way OS X works or perhaps maybe something similar to the 3 tier system mentioned above.

[EspoNation]

that list seems normal to me, i like the fact that microsoft is going to break windows 7 down into more packages. with xp we only ever got home or professional. i think windows home premium looks like the best choice for anyone who wants to get the most out of their operating systems and computers. saying that did people really need the $400 copy of vista ultimate? i like it, and i would pay the 260 bucks for windows 7 home premium... that is only because 1. i would never use vista, and 2. i am using xp home... all in all, i like it. might download the beta this weekend just to try it out, all i know is that it came at the right time to take down vista which to me seems more like a whole other windows 98 and make something that actually works as well as xp does.

[XcOM]

windows 98 worked very well, well, FE was crap, SE was the best OS at the time.

and as for there arn't meny versions of linux,

checkout linux.org, it lists 100's

In my cd wallet i have:
Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, Red Hat, Madrake, Mandriva, Arch, Sabyan, Gentoo and debian. thats just MY collection that i have. All linux's use the same kernel, but they all use different modules so they are all slightly different, i find ubuntu is better for first time users, arch is better for hardcore coders, i find ubuntu runs windows applications under wine alot less hassle than any other, and installing drivers is generaly easier.

[nevermind1534]

and as for there arn't meny versions of linux,

checkout linux.org, it lists 100's

In my cd wallet i have:
Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, Red Hat, Madrake, Mandriva, Arch, Sabyan, Gentoo and debian. thats just MY collection that i have. All linux's use the same kernel, but they all use different modules so they are all slightly different, i find ubuntu is better for first time users, arch is better for hardcore coders, i find ubuntu runs windows applications under wine alot less hassle than any other, and installing drivers is generaly easier.

There's lots of distributions, but the individual distributions of linux generally don't have many versions. Most only have one for each release.

[XcOM]

example:

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, CEUbuntu, Ubuntu Server

Suse, Suse Enterprise, Suse Professional, Suse Server, Novell Enterprise

[nevermind1534]

example:

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, CEUbuntu, Ubuntu Server

Suse, Suse Enterprise, Suse Professional, Suse Server, Novell Enterprise

But if you look at the majority of them, you don't get many versions. And for Ububtu, they have Ubuntu easily visible (maybe server, too).

[XcOM]

true

[EspoNation]

i was gonna say, whenever you hear of someone using Linux, it is always Ubuntu.

[chaksq]

I think the different versions is just a large scheme to make more money. Less functionality = less money, if someone needs just one feature extra (like I use remote desktop a lot) they are forced to upgrade. And say a small buisness owner buys a off the shelf machine it will likely come with Home Premium, but they really need the features of a more advanced version. Half the machines at my job have XP MCE, which is not at all for buisness but my boss gets everything from costco.

If you are considering trying open source I say go for it. The modern releases have come a long way in recent years. My personal preference would be either Ubuntu or Fedora. Both are relatively easy to install. Ubuntu is probably easiest for new users. Fedora is a little more advanced but is actually better for a user who will be doing serious tweaking. Many mainstream distributions of linux have a pay for Professional, Enterprise, or similar named version. The reason for this is then corporate customers get professional support for the OS at a developer level.

[XcOM]

i generaly use fedora on my laptop,

when i build my machine im going to try arch and see if it detects me network card ok, if it does then it will have XP and arch installed on it

[Drum Thumper]

That Technet subscription looks nicer and nicer all the time...

[luciusad2004]

That Technet subscription looks nicer and nicer all the time...

huh?

[XcOM]

That Technet subscription looks nicer and nicer all the time...

i wouldn't mind one

[Drum Thumper]

huh?


Technet (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx).

[DaveW]

I'm using Fedora 10 in a Virtual Machine at home, Virtual Machine on my Laptop, and on the Hardware in my office.

It's the most stable version of Linux I've ever used. It's also quite pretty.

-Dave

[PartyLikeARockstar]

Once you get digging through Linux, with enough time and patience, you can get most distros to look/feel/behave list most other distros. That said though, Ubuntu gets another vote at least in the coming from Windows crowd, because they can pay for support from Canonical. Mandriva maybe also, they can buy the Fluendo suite for codecs in the USA and not get sued for trying to manage their MP3-based music player.

my $0.02