The Many Versions of Windows
Unlike Windows XP which initially launched with only the Home and Professional versions, Microsoft is coming out of the gate with numerous different versions of Vista to target different market segments. There's a lot to talk about, so let's first take a look at the different versions, their prices, and their features:
All things considered, as the most stripped down version of Windows available to consumers, Home Basic is not really an option as too much is removed for it to be truly useful to a lot of people. While Aero Glass tends to be as much eye-candy as it is a useful feature, it does serve its purposes. This leaves most users to pick from Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate.
Given the price of the Ultimate edition of Vista - higher than any previous version of Windows - it's hard to recommend it right off the bat. For anyone that needs every last feature on a computer there's really no other option, but otherwise there's a lot of money to be saved by skipping out on a feature or two that may never get used. BitLocker is the only feature that the Ultimate edition has that no other edition has, but given it requires a Trusted Platform Module to be used - which few computers have - on its own it won't sell many copies of Ultimate. Microsoft has also released at least one other Ultimate Extra, but again most people won't want to spend the extra money for a poker game.
As for the Home Premium and Business editions, our best guess would be that it will be the Business edition that becomes the enthusiast standard like XP Professional was before it. Media Center is still an application better suited for use with a TV, whereas Business comes with Previous Versions and Remote Desktop, the latter of which is largely responsible for selling enthusiasts on XP Professional over XP Home. However, Microsoft has done a fairly good job here of splitting features between the two to entice users into buying the Ultimate edition. Business lacks the Parental Controls functionality and Home Premium lacks Previous Versions, and the only way to get both is to grab the Ultimate edition. In short, picking the right version of Vista will be about compromises, either giving up features you may want or giving up more money in order to get everything. Microsoft has also indicated that users will be able to purchase incremental upgrades to Vista, so if you start at Home Basic you may be able to upgrade to Premium and eventually Ultimate over time. Details about what upgrades will be allowed as well as the upgrade prices are not yet finalized.
It's on this note that the issue of piracy comes up, as it's a poorly kept secret that Windows XP Professional was easily and quickly pirated due to there being a version for large businesses that used volume license keys. Microsoft has since then rectified the situation somewhat with the Windows Genuine Advantage system for alerting users who are using pirated copies and locking them out of various Microsoft services like Windows Update, but nonetheless XP was fundamentally easily broken in terms of anti-piracy features. So far however this does not appear to be the case for Vista, as Microsoft has done away with VLK in favor of requiring activation on all copies, with the Enterprise version of Business using a keyserver. The lack of an immediately piratable version of Vista will undoubtedly slow its adoption compared to XP, and the Business versions' popularity will not be as lopsided.
We've also had several questions since our initial articles about what can be done with legitimate versions of Windows given that Vista has better activation controls than XP. Among other poorly kept secrets, it's known that Microsoft did not stick to the End User License Agreement for XP very well for OEM copies - while the EULA for an OEM copy of XP made it clear that it was for installation on a single machine only and tied to that machine (or rather its motherboard) for the rest of time, Microsoft has been letting XP users reactivate anyhow without trouble. As a result users who had purchased OEM copies of XP back in 2001 have continued to reuse it up through today, which is an excellent deal for them given the low price of the OEM versions spread over 5 years. While the EULA has not changed for Vista as far as this policy goes, there have been concerns and rumors that Microsoft will be clamping down on this practice.
To be fair, we have no way to predict exactly what Microsoft will do here. It's possible they will continue this policy, but that's not a good enough answer as they can change it at any time given that they control the activation system for Vista. Simply put, the only way to be sure that a purchased copy of Vista will be transferable to a new computer is to get a retail version, either as an upgrade or a full version. Going with an OEM version may work now, but it will always be a gamble on if/when Microsoft will clamp down on transfers.
The retail upgrade versions also deserve a quick disclaimer here about how they have changed since XP. Previously you only needed to prove ownership of a previous version of Windows to use an upgrade disc for a clean install, which was as easy as inserting the disc for an older version of Windows. According to Microsoft's own notes this is no longer the case; Vista upgrades work as upgrades only and a previous version of Windows must be fully installed and activated to let the upgrade install. As this requires a user to effectively install two operating systems if they have an upgrade disc, this is not a welcome change - new installations will take much longer now as the gains made by Vista's new image-based installer will be offset by the slow installation procedures for old versions of Windows. This change is a fundamentally poor decision by Microsoft. A workaround has already been found, but it still requires installing Vista twice.
Unlike Windows XP which initially launched with only the Home and Professional versions, Microsoft is coming out of the gate with numerous different versions of Vista to target different market segments. There's a lot to talk about, so let's first take a look at the different versions, their prices, and their features:
| Windows Vista Prices | |||
| Retail | Upgrade | OEM | |
| Home Basic | $200 | $100 | $100 |
| Home Premium | $240 | $160 | $120 |
| Business | $300 | $200 | $150 |
| Ultimate | $400 | $250 | $200 |
| Windows Vista Feature Comparison | ||||
| Home Basic | Home Premium | Business | Ultimate | |
| Aero Glass | X | X | X | |
| Mobility Center | X | X | X | |
| Meeting Space | X | X | X | |
| Media Center | X | X | ||
| Parental Controls | X | X | X | |
| Previous Versions | X | X | ||
| Remote Desktop | X | X | ||
| BitLocker | X | |||
All things considered, as the most stripped down version of Windows available to consumers, Home Basic is not really an option as too much is removed for it to be truly useful to a lot of people. While Aero Glass tends to be as much eye-candy as it is a useful feature, it does serve its purposes. This leaves most users to pick from Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate.
Given the price of the Ultimate edition of Vista - higher than any previous version of Windows - it's hard to recommend it right off the bat. For anyone that needs every last feature on a computer there's really no other option, but otherwise there's a lot of money to be saved by skipping out on a feature or two that may never get used. BitLocker is the only feature that the Ultimate edition has that no other edition has, but given it requires a Trusted Platform Module to be used - which few computers have - on its own it won't sell many copies of Ultimate. Microsoft has also released at least one other Ultimate Extra, but again most people won't want to spend the extra money for a poker game.
As for the Home Premium and Business editions, our best guess would be that it will be the Business edition that becomes the enthusiast standard like XP Professional was before it. Media Center is still an application better suited for use with a TV, whereas Business comes with Previous Versions and Remote Desktop, the latter of which is largely responsible for selling enthusiasts on XP Professional over XP Home. However, Microsoft has done a fairly good job here of splitting features between the two to entice users into buying the Ultimate edition. Business lacks the Parental Controls functionality and Home Premium lacks Previous Versions, and the only way to get both is to grab the Ultimate edition. In short, picking the right version of Vista will be about compromises, either giving up features you may want or giving up more money in order to get everything. Microsoft has also indicated that users will be able to purchase incremental upgrades to Vista, so if you start at Home Basic you may be able to upgrade to Premium and eventually Ultimate over time. Details about what upgrades will be allowed as well as the upgrade prices are not yet finalized.
It's on this note that the issue of piracy comes up, as it's a poorly kept secret that Windows XP Professional was easily and quickly pirated due to there being a version for large businesses that used volume license keys. Microsoft has since then rectified the situation somewhat with the Windows Genuine Advantage system for alerting users who are using pirated copies and locking them out of various Microsoft services like Windows Update, but nonetheless XP was fundamentally easily broken in terms of anti-piracy features. So far however this does not appear to be the case for Vista, as Microsoft has done away with VLK in favor of requiring activation on all copies, with the Enterprise version of Business using a keyserver. The lack of an immediately piratable version of Vista will undoubtedly slow its adoption compared to XP, and the Business versions' popularity will not be as lopsided.
We've also had several questions since our initial articles about what can be done with legitimate versions of Windows given that Vista has better activation controls than XP. Among other poorly kept secrets, it's known that Microsoft did not stick to the End User License Agreement for XP very well for OEM copies - while the EULA for an OEM copy of XP made it clear that it was for installation on a single machine only and tied to that machine (or rather its motherboard) for the rest of time, Microsoft has been letting XP users reactivate anyhow without trouble. As a result users who had purchased OEM copies of XP back in 2001 have continued to reuse it up through today, which is an excellent deal for them given the low price of the OEM versions spread over 5 years. While the EULA has not changed for Vista as far as this policy goes, there have been concerns and rumors that Microsoft will be clamping down on this practice.
To be fair, we have no way to predict exactly what Microsoft will do here. It's possible they will continue this policy, but that's not a good enough answer as they can change it at any time given that they control the activation system for Vista. Simply put, the only way to be sure that a purchased copy of Vista will be transferable to a new computer is to get a retail version, either as an upgrade or a full version. Going with an OEM version may work now, but it will always be a gamble on if/when Microsoft will clamp down on transfers.
The retail upgrade versions also deserve a quick disclaimer here about how they have changed since XP. Previously you only needed to prove ownership of a previous version of Windows to use an upgrade disc for a clean install, which was as easy as inserting the disc for an older version of Windows. According to Microsoft's own notes this is no longer the case; Vista upgrades work as upgrades only and a previous version of Windows must be fully installed and activated to let the upgrade install. As this requires a user to effectively install two operating systems if they have an upgrade disc, this is not a welcome change - new installations will take much longer now as the gains made by Vista's new image-based installer will be offset by the slow installation procedures for old versions of Windows. This change is a fundamentally poor decision by Microsoft. A workaround has already been found, but it still requires installing Vista twice.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
redpriest_ - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Did you guys run the 64-bit tests solely on the Intel Conroe platform? Or did you test an AMD based platform as well? Recall that Conroe has a few performance enhancing features that *only* work in 32-bit mode (branch fusioning, for one - some decoder limitations as well).That could explain why a Core 2 Duo system might have seemed slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit mode.
Jeff7181 - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
SuperFetch is by far my favorite new feature of Vista. I put my first copy of Vista on my laptop, which has a 5400 RPM hard drive. Opening apps Outlook and VB .NET 2005 EE weren't really slow under XP, but there were those few extra seconds it took to load that would often leave me tapping my finger on the palm rest while I waited. Now under Vista, Outlook, VB .NET 2005 EE, and IE7 all seem to be able to fit in the SuperFetch cache, as they all open nearly instantly with just 1 GB of RAM. I'm considering upgrading to 2 GB just to see what else I can get to open really fast. :Dbldckstark - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Was superfetch disabled when you tried the Readyboost feature in Vista? Whichever way you ran the test it bears mentioning. If it was off, then how does it do with it on? If it was on, it may make a difference in how it relates to XP.Also, as I understand it Vista has a system backup now that creates a "ghost" of the drive. Could you check out this feature and get back to us?
JarredWalton - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I'm not sure it's possible to disable SuperFetch, so I'm pretty sure all testing was done with it on. As far as the "ghost" goes, that's part of System Restore which can be disabled quite easily. I'll have to let the other editors say whether it was enabled or not, though.WT - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
What drives me nuts are the plentiful comments about how slow Vista is compared to XP. I mean, anybody hear this before when MS came out with a new OS ? Same thing for XP,W2k,98 ... ad nauseum. Yea, its a new Operating System with more 'toys' built in, what were you expecting ? You aren't gonna load it on your P3/256 RAM rig and enjoy the Vista 'experience'. Damn, this thing runs better than XP on my rig !It's understood that it won't be as quick (keep in mind the OS has been available for retail purchase ... 2 days now) as XP, but drivers will improve that performance gap to a smaller number within 3 months time. I waited until just last year to upgrade to XP (W2K all the way for me !) but find myself with 2 copies of Vista and would prefer to dual boot one and go Vista all-out on the other one.
I griped back in my W2K days about being forced to upgrade due to content (MS games were announced that would only run in XP) so this time around I will be ready.
DX10? Marketing genius !!! We shall force an upgrade upon the masses !! I upgrade frequently, so DX10 and its graphical splendor is a priority, but if I would have to fork over $200 to actually buy Vista, I would be less than impresssed with DX10 eye candy.
EODetroit - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Hopefully, now, finally, Anandtech will start testing motherboards for stability while loaded with the maximum amount of memory. So if the MB supposedly supports 8GB of RAM, you test it with that much, and make sure its stable. I've wanted this done for years... memory is expensive and it sucks to load a MB up and find out it doesn't really work or only works if you cut the speed in half.Thanks.
manno - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
... no mention of DRM then? No mention of Linux? Personally I hate Linux, but I've switched to it because of Vista's use of DRM. Not all Microsoft's fault, but they put it in there... My computer, my hardware, I choose what to do with it, not MS, not media companies. Why shouldn't I be able to watch High def content on my old, and once expensive non-HDMI LCD screen?Get a Mac, Apple is the lesser of 2 evils, they aren't the 800lb gorilla in the room. MS could have told media companies to stuff it. Apple has no choice, it's too small, yet their the ones that forced DRM-Light(TM) on the media companies. MS had the media companied force DRM-Oppressive(TM) on them... how the heck does that work?
I can't believe you left Linux out of the final comparison, is it as capable an OS, yes. Not nearly as user friendly, but it also has 0 DRM, doesn't phone-home isn't beholden to any one entity. I'm not against DRM, as a whole, just Vista's implementation. BS like MS creating D3D to subvert open standards like OpenGL, then removing it from the OS, using it's monopoly-based-ridiculous-margins(TM) to finance D3D's uptake, again rather than take an existing standard and expanding on it. They create their own to reinforce their monopoly. I know why they do this stuff I'm just peeved so many people don't give two flying f...
grr...
-manno
mlambert890 - Friday, February 2, 2007 - link
Youre insane dude.. No offense but there just isnt anything else to say. Posts like these always read like the transcript of a Weather Underground meeting in the sixties. "FIGHT THE POWER!!! FIGHT THE POWER!!!"Look out! The black helicopters have deployed from the underground helipad in Redmond and are circling!!! Send up the penguin symbol to summon the dynamic duo - Torvald and Stallman!
Reflex - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
There is no more or less DRM in Vista than in XP, or even OS X. The platform does not determine the playback of DRM'd media, the content does. The choice is simple: If you want to play back DRM'd media, then you have to support the decryption scheme that the media requires to decode it. In so doing you have to legally accept the limitations defined by that DRM scheme.It is no different for OS X, Linux, XP or any other OS. They either support the DRM schemes or they do not get to playback the media that uses them. This is why it is unlikely that you will be able to play DRM'd High Definition content anytime soon on Linux. That is the alternative, no support for the content at all.
Also, you can play high definition content on Vista just fine without HDMI/HDCP on your monitor. You simply cannot play back such content if it is coupled to a DRM scheme that requires HDCP, but that is true of every OS. Any other HD content will play back without issue.
Again, there is no difference between DRM on Vista from DRM on any other platform.
pmh - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
The DRM in vista is the major reason that I will only install it if physically forced to. Having bought a new Dell in order to get their very nice 24" LCD last december, I have an upgrade coupon which will lie unused until/unless the DRM can be disabled. MS refuses to display HD on my new monitor using Vista? Screw em.