RSSWhy would Windows 7 customers spend $120 more for BitLocker?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 2, 2009, 3:46 PM
The fact that Microsoft will continue to offer consumers multiple versions of Windows when the company's new Windows 7 premieres on October 22, continues to stick in the craw of many who doubt there's any real demand for a less-than-complete edition of the operating system. Retailers continue to require a three-tier marketing approach, although Microsoft's choice of the name "Home Premium" this time around to refer to the lesser of its good/better/best tiers, continues to raise eyebrows.
But the questions about what's so Ultimate about "Ultimate" have only resounded more loudly, especially after CNET's Ina Fried brought the issue to a head early this morning. Since the only two differences that Microsoft's Web page mentioned between the Professional and Ultimate editions are the inclusion of BitLocker drive encryption and the multiple language pack (typically included with Windows' business licenses), prospective customers are asking what it is that makes Ultimate really worth $120 more than Professional.
One of the questions from a customer on Microsoft's own Web site reads, "So first we Vista Ultimate users pay a huge price for a Vista version that is not in any way worth the money and now we have to pay a even more for an upgrade? WTF? At least make the Ultimate upgrade cost as much as the Professional upgrade. Otherwise it's like double tax!"
Betanews asked Microsoft this afternoon, what are the extra features of Windows 7 Ultimate that will justify the extra investment on the part of everyday consumers? "For customers who 'want it all' and customers who want enhanced security features such as BitLocker that are in Windows 7 Enterprise Edition, we offer the Ultimate SKU," a company spokesperson responded to us today. "An important thing to keep in mind with Ultimate is that it is a very niche SKU," the spokesperson remarked to Betanews, "and Microsoft anticipates most consumers will run Home Premium -- which is why this is the SKU that is the most discounted compared with Windows Vista pricing...That said, when you have a customer base of more than one billion, two SKU options can't satisfy all of their varied needs."
The standard upgrade price for the Windows 7 Professional SKU is $199.99, but under the terms of a pre-order discount program expected to expire on Sunday, July 11, Microsoft is knocking $100 off that upgrade price, for a total $200 discount from Professional's full retail MSRP of $299.99. No similar discounts are being offered for Win7 Ultimate, and its upgrade price is essentially unchanged (except for ending in .99 rather than .95) from the Vista Ultimate upgrade price.
There actually are several features in Ultimate that are brought over from the Windows 7 Enterprise SKU, that are not to be found in Professional. Their usefulness in a typical consumer-oriented home setting, however, may be extremely limited. For example, AppLocker is designed to provide administrators with a group policy tool for specifying explicit rules for which applications can be run in the OS environment and which cannot. BranchCache enables users of corporate intranets to retrieve files and other data from locally stored caches that are nearer to the client, in networks managed by Windows Server 2008 R2. And DirectAccess is a phenomenal new feature that enables a Windows client to access a company network directly (again using WS2K8 R2), by way of a secure IPsec connection, without having to rely on anyone's VPN scheme, without any tunneling, and without having to sacrifice the client's own local network or homegroup connection.
These are all wonderful features indeed, but try explaining them to the fellow who's considering Ultimate as a platform for World of Warcraft. He may actually never use them -- he may "want it all," but he'll probably discover he doesn't need it all.
Does that mean this customer would fall outside the "niche" of Ultimate buyers to whom our Microsoft spokesperson referred this afternoon? The company's response to us today would appear to say, yes.
Why would anyone pay $120 more? there is an abundance of 3rd party solutions for bitlocker and language support, many of them free.
Score: 1
|Can you "upgrade" from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Professional?
Which version of Windows 7 have IIS?
Score: 0
|Can you upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Professional?
Which versions of Windows 7 have IIS?
Score: 0
|No. You cannot use an upgrade SKU to move from Ultimate to Pro. Microsoft has never offered discount pricing for version downgrades.
Score: 0
|I feel bad how much you have to pay for an OS, heh, the main reason why ppl download pirated windows os. I use linux (Ubuntu) if I want to run Windows software I use Wine for that. but I respect ppl decision what OS they use.
Score: 0
|You are so nice to us.
Thank you.
Score: 0
|There is a sucker born every minute...Microsoft knows this very well which is why you see their lineup of arbitrarily stripped down super expensive OS'es. It is really sad how they make you pay extra for things other OS'es give you for way cheaper prices and yet the uneducated masses keep buy the outrageously overpriced Microsoft software.
$120 for Bitlocker...how about $0 for Trucrypt?
Score: 1
|"$120 for Bitlocker...how about $0 for Trucrypt?"
Hey genius:
1.) It's TrueCrypt.
2.) It's an enterprise feature. Home users have *zero* use for it.
3.) As stated in both the article *and* previous posts, BitLocker is *not* the only additional feature.
Score: 0
|oh yeah, they reskined Vista and are going to give you some "widgets" just like Vista 1 Ultimate Super Touch Me Edtition for $399. Hey if you have money to burn, go for it. Like I said, there is a sucker born every second. $29 for Snow Leopard sure does look good.
Score: 0
|*laughing*
Huh... $399.
It's amazing how totally full of crap you are.
Not at all surprising after this gem:
[quote Fatty]
How do i deploy a Silvertud site on OSX Server or Solaris or Linux...you know, real server OSes?
[/quote]
Hehe...It's so clueless it almost hurts to laugh at it.
Obviously you don't need to have a clue what you're talking about to BS about it in topic...after topic...after topic....
Score: 1
|this is why i think the o.s. should be sold as bare bones.
then upon connectivity to the internet, users should be able to purchase individual modules to further customize the o.s.
i have bit locker, which i don't need. i have tablet pc services, which i don't need. the list goes on.
funny, but i thought that many years ago microsoft "wanted" to utilize the power of the internet to run their software (instead of installing the software locally on a pc).
in any case, i think since bill gates decided to leave the company, microsoft has been on "vacation".
Score: 0
|So the real problem is that i have no choice in matter apart from do it or not do it. I currently have Vista Ultimate and the only upgrade path is 7 Ultimate, if I want to save money then I have to do a clean install of the lower version in 7. Thanks Microsoft!!
Score: 0
|What really do you use in Vista Ultimate? There are many free versions of Bitlocker type apps. Honestly you were suckered into Ultimate in the first place IMHO.
Score: 0
|From an other Vista Ultimate user, I use it because it's the only version to support Subsystem for Unix Applications, and Win7 looks to continue this tradition. Cygwin is okay, but it's an application on top of the OS. I really couldn't careless about the other features, but that one I do care about.
MS should really merge Ultimate into Pro/Business, or come up with a package like five licenses with unlimited VMs of any edition of Windows on any of the five licenses.
Score: 0
|Too bad DirectAccess isn't in Professional. My workplace would find that useful.
Score: 0
|We'll be using enterprise on our laptops, Pro on our desktops. Shouldn't be too much of a hassle...
Score: 0
|Our Software Assurance should give us free upgrades from Vista Business to 7 Professional. However, some of my coworkers live and work in the field. DirectAccess would make it much easier for them to connect to the internal network and reduce the dreaded "user error". (Some of them try to connect to the internal network *before* they connect to the Internet. DirectAccess would mean that I could tell them not to worry about connecting to the internal network, that it would happen automatically.)
Score: 0
|With every new release that Microsoft put out over the years none ever really work, if I where to sell cars, houses,cameras, Watches, or any other product that works as badly as windows, there would be forced recalls to make manufecturers fix that problem, I run Vista Ultimate, Home Premium, on desperate machines, and to think that a person would spend even more for new headaches is beyond me. its about time Microsoft first prove that there system works before selling it.
Score: -1
|XP works. Vista works (now). ...and Win7, from what we've seen form the Beta and RC also works...even better.
How can millions of people use it daily with few (if any) problems if "it doesn't work"?
Riiiight, you're one of those Microsoft can't do anything right folks. Sorry, we've got plenty of them here already, man.
Score: 1
|I use Vista everyday and hate the slow speed of it, its still buggy (yes SP2 installed), and quite honestly makes my quad core feel like its a slug. We'll see if 7 does better, but I'm getting it on a new PC I'll build.
Score: 0
|Yeah, i hate having Vista in my home at all...wish Microsoft did not have a desktop monopoly so game makers would support other OS'es. I really need to get another Mac...my wife keeps our only Mac away from me as she can not stand to use the broken Microsoft OS and I can't stand having to rebuild a Windows box every other month because of all the spyware and viruses she gets from just using the thing.
Once you use OSX, you quickly wonder why Microsoft's OS'es are so horrible. How does Apple make such a superior product?
Score: -2
|By controlling every aspect of it... the biggest problem windows has is how much stuff it supports - if they could get rid of legacy report and support for older devices - windows would run even smoother then it does in 7
You can test this theory out on hackintoshes as they are not specifically using parts that are speced for a mac and sometimes they run nice other times its a disaster.
Score: 0
|Here's a thought MS is allowing the public to download the release candidate and use it until March 2010, how about you try using it and see if its something you like.
If your quad core is really as slow as you say with Vista you got some other problems then Vista there...
Score: 0
|@fattyturd: "Once you use OSX, you quickly wonder why Microsoft's OS'es are so horrible. How does Apple make such a superior product?"
Insist that OSX start supporting all the hardware that Windows does. That'll shut you up. Never mind that backwards compatibility that Apple got rid of when it jumped to OSX from MacOS.
Score: 0
|@morrisTheCat: meow meow meow. ROFL. Do you know that anyone can write a driver for OSX or Windows, or Linux, etc...? OSX has a well documented driver model which any hardware manufacturer can use to write drivers for anything they make. What driver are you in need of? I would contact your hardware manufacturer and ask them to create a driver. You troll, makes no sense as usual.
Backwards compatible? Like XP to Vista? ROFL. Think before you speak....well, that might be hard for you
Score: 1
|The problem with your logic is maybe it is this "easy" to do but they only sell apple pcs with OSX and Apple forbids it in their license agreement from using unapproved hardware...so he's not a troll, he would be right.
As you so elegantly put it, think before you start typing. Reading comprehension might be a life saver for you.
Score: 2
|@fattyturd: "@morrisTheCat: meow meow meow. ROFL. Do you know that anyone can write a driver for OSX or Windows, or Linux, etc...? OSX has a well documented driver model which any hardware manufacturer can use to write drivers for anything they make. What driver are you in need of? I would contact your hardware manufacturer and ask them to create a driver. You troll, makes no sense as usual.
Backwards compatible? Like XP to Vista? ROFL. Think before you speak....well, that might be hard for you"
Nice try. And Morris the Cat is a nickname of mine. It doesn't bother me. I said to tell Apple to support the range of hardware that Windows does. That means that OSX needs to be available on more than just the computers that Apple sells. Why isn't OSX sold separately?
A lot of XP software does run on Vista. How much does MacOS software runs on OSX?
Score: 0
|"Why isn't OSX sold separately?"
Apple does not sell OSX separately because that is not their business model. Supporting AMD processors is rather trivial to do when you already support Intel. So "all the hardware Windows supports" is what else besides AMD and Intel?
The reality is OSX runs on more hardware than Windows; OSX currently supports: Intel, ARM, and PowerPC. Windows only runs on Intel and AMD.
Score: 0
|"The reality is OSX runs on more hardware than Windows; OSX currently supports: Intel, ARM, and PowerPC. Windows only runs on Intel and AMD"
*laughing*
Funny how it supports *none* of the motherboards I can buy online. None of them. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Intel boards? Nope.
AMD boards? Nope.
That is the reality. That was the point you so conveniently and totally missed....as usual.
Score: 0
|With Windows, I can go buy the parts I want, put them together, and install Windows. I've done this many times. I can't do that with OSX. When it's possible for me to do that, then you have a case (no pun intended). Until Apple sells their OS separately and you can install it on a computer that you customized yourself, I'm not interested.
Score: 0
|Damn right!
Funny how "choice", "freedom" etc don't seem to MATTER when the mac faithful leap up to defend their proprietary God SteveOurWayIsTheOnlyWayJobs.
I wouldn't mind running OS X, but I'll do it on my hardware...like I *always* have had the choice out of the box, with Windows.
And it works great.
Score: 0
|I am still outraged by the upgrade program being same for XP and Vista users. Being a Vista user, I was expecting a free upgrade in form of download (optional fee for backup disc if anyone wants it). It is no brainer: Windows 7 is an upgrade to much underdeveloped Vista. Although Vista became usable after SP1, it still runs sluggishly on high end machines with professional apps on it (CS4 for example). Software manufacturer disliked Vista so much that some of them even refused to support Vista installations.
Shame Microsoft: you should show at least some respect to your consumers and admit that Windows 7 is a half-release upgrade (pack) to Vista - release it for free and gain some respect from your customers.
Score: 2
|well said...anyone with Vista should get a free "upgrade" to the latest Vista patch set which is called Windows 7. Unfortunately, Microsoft is dependent on charging super high prices for their software...and people are dumb enough to keep paying them.
Score: -2
|Differences between Home Premium and Ultimate:
Encrypting File System (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
Location Aware Printing (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
Remote Desktop Host (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
Presentation Mode (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
Windows Server domain joining (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
Windows XP Mode (Not needed for home users) (Professional)
AppLocker (Not needed for home users) (Enterprise)
BitLocker (Debatable...security nuts will want it, no-one else will) (Enterprise)
BranchCache (Not needed for home users) (Enterprise)
DirectAccess (Not needed for home users) (Enterprise)
UNIX Application Subsystem (Not needed for home users) (Enterprise)
MUI (Not needed at all, really...) (Enterprise)
VHD Booting. (Not needed...but *very* cool.) (Enterprise) ;)
So really... Vista Home Premium should be the only version sold in retail... Professional and Ultimate should be VLK, SA, and "Anytime Upgrade", and Enterprise should be VLK/SA only.
Score: 0
|Thanks for informative post Pc_Tool One has to wonder why the so-called tech journalists have been done the same in their analysis of the situation.
Score: -2
|Heh...
Apparently they don't have access to wikipedia? *grin*
Seriously though, most of the features listed above aren't really game-changers for home users. The only one's that *might* possibly be useful to home users were the ones mentioned in the article...hence the point the author was trying to make.
Score: 0
|The only downside to Home Premium is that it only supports a maximum of 16GB of RAM in the x64 version.
Score: 0
|You are joking right? Why would you need 16 GB of ram on a home machine?
Score: 0
|I was looking forward to using my 32gb's of ram. Damn you Microsoft!
Score: 1
|"Windows XP Mode (Not needed for home users) "
A fair number of home users could use that one. A lot of people need or at least want to run older software that they just weren't able to run in Vista.
You would be surprised how many people want to run older games still. Horror of horrors some want to run Slot Machine games. My boggles at little old ladies mindlessly sitting in front of a modern computer and running a bloody SLOT MACHINE emulator on it. I keep showing them Bejeweled but they want the pretty spinning wheels.
I admit they might not be able to figure out the XP mode but at least it should be there on the home version. Sometimes I point out that my mother learned to program at sixty so it is not too late to learn something new.
Ethelred
Score: 0
|"You would be surprised how many people want to run older games still."
If the games worked in XP, chances are, they''ll work in Win7, at the very least under compatibility mode. Games that didn't work in XP well....they aren't going to work in XP mode either.
Score: 0
|16GB? That's all? I'm out. (sarcastic)
Score: 0
|I think much of the Vista Ultimate uptake was from fanboys and people with more money than sense. Having said that Microsoft did claim Ultimate Extra's would make it worth their while, then left their faithful customers hanging when they nixed the program.
Hopefully people will see that with Windows 7 there's little to no reason for end users to buy Ultimate, and will instead go for Home Premium or Professional. With all the coverage about the (very few) differences between the SKU's, I won't have any compassion when people complain after it launches.
Score: 0
|