18 Nov Microsoft’s Windows 7 Upgrade Folly
Honestly, does anyone understand Microsoft’s point in offering upgrade media for Windows 7? As well, what’s with the different versions?
I am trying to figure out why Microsoft would want to screw their customers so much. I mean, what’s with all the different versions of Windows? Windows 7 isn’t as bad as Vista, with all it’s myriad versions, but truly, it is time to get rid of it all.
First, let’s look at the versions. Principally, there are 3 versions of Windows 7, with a 4th that’s hardly worth mentioning. The three main versions are Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. The fourth is Starter, which is intended for netbooks, but we won’t discuss that one here.
The main difference between the 3 versions is the software that’s bundled with the OS. Nope, not the OS itself, but the software that comes with it. This makes no sense to me.
For instance, let’s look at the backup and restore software. Here, you can see the different options. It says that all versions of Windows 7 have “full-system Backup and Restore.” That’s wonderful, in and of itself, as in Vista you had to have Ultimate or Professional if you wanted to backup more than just data, but also create a restorable image. However, for Windows 7, you have to have Professional or Ultimate to be able to “back up to a home or business network.”
Let’s think about that for a second. Why would Microsoft want to prevent home users from backing up to a network? Could it be because they surmise home users don’t have a network? If so, then why does Microsoft have a product called “Windows Home Server?” As well, Microsoft themselves mention backing up to a “home or business network.” So they’re saying that if you have a home network, you need to get Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate? Does this make any sense?
As well, Microsoft actually had to write code to introduce this situation. They actually had to create more than one version of this backup software. Does that make any sense? And let’s say that they surmise that home users, by and large, do not have home networks. Well, then wouldn’t the lack of the network do the job of preventing us from backing our machines up to a network? Why would we need software to specifically prevent us from doing what the hardware already is preventing?
Okay, I can see that Microsoft is probably wanting us to go to a higher level of Windows 7 to get more functionality. But seriously, are we going to do that? The majority of people actually choosing their version of Windows 7 are tech-savvy individuals. Those that aren’t will 99.9% assuredly be getting Windows 7 through the purchase of their next computer. And the tech-savvy among us will find alternative methods to doing what we need to do (Paul Thurrott gave us a great list of cheap-to-free alternatives to the extras in the higher levels of Windows 7). Heck, we may even find alternative methods to paying for the higher version of Windows. But we won’t go there just yet.
I guess my real question is when did the price of an OS depend not on the OS but on the extras that come with it? To be sure, with the exception of Windows 7 Starter Edition, all the three main versions of Windows are the same at the core (notwithstanding the 32-bit or 64-bit differences, which are available in all three versions). As far as I can tell, the OS is nearly identical in each version; it’s just the extras that make the prices different.
So why doesn’t Microsoft just sell one version of Windows 7 and then have a la carte extras that can be purchased online? It would make far more sense and it would make customers far more happy. If I already have a robust backup solution, I don’t need, nor do I want, Microsoft’s solution taking up drive space. And let’s say I need language support. Well, then I have to get Ultimate, which means I get a handful of other things that I didn’t care to have. It feels like a bait-n-switch scheme, doesn’t it?
For me, I say that Microsoft should have sold Windows 7 at no more than $75 for a license (and $100-125 for a pack of 3-5 licenses), and then sell the extras for $10-30 each. As it is, I bought one student/teacher version of Windows Home Premium because I wanted my gaming rig to get the performance benefit of Windows 7 over Vista, but I am seriously holding off on getting any other licenses because of the expense. I’ll delve deeper into this in the next article when I talk about the upgrade versus full install versions.
But on the matter of different versions of Windows 7 all due to the extras involved, I don’t see that many people going beyond Home Premium. And indeed, many of us will feel screwed by Microsoft if we got Vista Ultimate ($400 of my hard-earned dollars pretty well pissed away there). Upgrading from any version of Vista to any version of Windows 7 doesn’t change the price. If I had Ultimate and I go to Home Premium, it’s still $119, which is the same price as if I’d been upgrading from Windows 98. That’s a nice kick in the jimmies from Microsoft, no? And it’s all the more reason to reduce the versions to a single version. At least we feel less slighted. And then if they wanted to they could offer deep discounts on the extras for those of us that had them.
So, what do you all think? Did you upgrade? To what version? What version did you come from? Does the array of different versions confuse you? Let me know in the comments below.
No Comments