Can someone explain the Vista lifecycle to me?

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=WINDOWS+vista

Vista Business and Enterprise get extended support until 2017, but Vista Ultimate has no extended support?

OK, Ultimate was a consumer release, but it was the most complete release and I know several small businesses who have installed it. And it was the most expensive edition. It makes no sense to disadvantage the most premium product.

And what exactly happens in April 2012 (when mainstream support ends)? Since all Vista's are the same OS, patches made for Vista Business will work on Ultimate and the home versions too. So the only way to phase out the other editions at that point would be to...  Will they block WU for Ultimate and the Home versions?

Microsoft doesn't block WU, and it's more than likely they'll release a third service pack (or at least an update rollup) as it approaches the end of lifecycle date.

It's a sad fact that consumer softwares get earlier end-of-lifecycle dates compared to "Enterprise" stuff, but this dates back to the 9x/NT separation (where 9x had four major updates in the same space that NT had two). With the "unified" model Microsoft needs to sort this out.

W3bbo said:

Microsoft doesn't block WU, and it's more than likely they'll release a third service pack (or at least an update rollup) as it approaches the end of lifecycle date.

 

It's a sad fact that consumer softwares get earlier end-of-lifecycle dates compared to "Enterprise" stuff, but this dates back to the 9x/NT separation (where 9x had four major updates in the same space that NT had two). With the "unified" model Microsoft needs to sort this out.

The 2012 date for Ultimate is not exactly sad, but outrageous actually.

Ultimate was (and still is!) advertised as business OS, too:

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx

-----

The most complete edition of Windows Vista—with the power, security, and mobility features that you need for work, and all of the entertainment features that you want for fun

When you want to have it all, including the ability to shift smoothly between play and productivity, there's Windows Vista Ultimate. This edition of Windows Vista offers an advanced, business-focused infrastructure, mobile productivity, and a premium home digital entertainment experience, all in a single offering.

Windows Vista Ultimate offers all of the features found in Windows Vista Home Premium, including Windows Media Center, Windows Movie Maker with high-definition support, and Windows DVD Maker. It also offers all of the features found in Windows Vista Business, including business networking, centralized management tools, and advanced system backup features. And Windows Vista Ultimate has all of the new security and data protection features that help take Windows Vista to a whole new level of dependability.

If you want a single PC that fulfills all of your work, travel, and entertainment needs, or if you simply want to be confident that you have the very best, Windows Vista Ultimate is the no-compromise edition for you.

------

And here MS advertises it again for business users:

--------

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx (click on "safer")

Windows Vista Ultimate includes support for joining a network domain—a standard business networking feature that enables improved security and manageability for business PCs. Windows Vista Ultimate also includes support for Group Policy. This helps system administrators save time and reduce security risks by configuring wireless network settings, removable storage devices, printers, Internet Explorer, and even power-management settings centrally and automatically. In addition, Windows Vista Ultimate includes the essential IT infrastructure found in Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Enterprise so that your PCs and IT infrastructure can grow as your business grows and thrives.

-----------------

As I said, i know some smallish businesses who bought it exactly for that. And let's not forget that Bitlocker for example was not available in Vista Business, only in Enterprise and Ultimate. And Enterprise was not easily available, only through the Software Assurance channels.

So businesses who wanted to use bitlocker but had no Microsoft Software Assurance had no other choice but ultimate. The same with the multi-language UI

Ultimate was advertised for the power users, BUT also for the business user who (for example) works at home and wants some of the entertainment features, like Mediacenter, too. And for the small businesses who need the additonal ultimate features but don't have SA.

To classify it as just as a normal consumer edition is absurd. And contradictory to Microsoft's own advertising.

wastingtimewithforums said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

The 2012 date for Ultimate is not exactly sad, but outrageous actually.

 

Ultimate was (and still is!) advertised as business OS, too:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx

 

-----

 

The most complete edition of Windows Vista—with the power, security, and mobility features that you need for work, and all of the entertainment features that you want for fun

 

When you want to have it all, including the ability to shift smoothly between play and productivity, there's Windows Vista Ultimate. This edition of Windows Vista offers an advanced, business-focused infrastructure, mobile productivity, and a premium home digital entertainment experience, all in a single offering.

 

Windows Vista Ultimate offers all of the features found in Windows Vista Home Premium, including Windows Media Center, Windows Movie Maker with high-definition support, and Windows DVD Maker. It also offers all of the features found in Windows Vista Business, including business networking, centralized management tools, and advanced system backup features. And Windows Vista Ultimate has all of the new security and data protection features that help take Windows Vista to a whole new level of dependability.

 

 

If you want a single PC that fulfills all of your work, travel, and entertainment needs, or if you simply want to be confident that you have the very best, Windows Vista Ultimate is the no-compromise edition for you.

 

------

 

 

And here MS advertises it again for business users:

 

--------

 

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx (click on "safer")

 

Windows Vista Ultimate includes support for joining a network domain—a standard business networking feature that enables improved security and manageability for business PCs. Windows Vista Ultimate also includes support for Group Policy. This helps system administrators save time and reduce security risks by configuring wireless network settings, removable storage devices, printers, Internet Explorer, and even power-management settings centrally and automatically. In addition, Windows Vista Ultimate includes the essential IT infrastructure found in Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Enterprise so that your PCs and IT infrastructure can grow as your business grows and thrives.

 

-----------------

 

 

 

As I said, i know some smallish businesses who bought it exactly for that. And let's not forget that Bitlocker for example was not available in Vista Business, only in Enterprise and Ultimate. And Enterprise was not easily available, only through the Software Assurance channels.

 

So businesses who wanted to use bitlocker but had no Microsoft Software Assurance had no other choice but ultimate. The same with the multi-language UI

 

Ultimate was advertised for the power users, BUT also for the business user who (for example) works at home and wants some of the entertainment features, like Mediacenter, too. And for the small businesses who need the additonal ultimate features but don't have SA.

 

To classify it as just as a normal consumer edition is absurd. And contradictory to Microsoft's own advertising.

Oh wow, just noticed that Windows 7 has the same boneheaded structure:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?alpha=Windows+7

Windows 7 Ultimate has again less support time than professional, despite having all the features of professional and being more expensive.

Oh, and again the advertising:

---

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/ultimate.aspx

Windows 7 Ultimate is the most versatile and powerful edition of Windows 7. It combines remarkable ease-of-use with the entertainment features of Home Premium and the business capabilities of Professional

---

And there they are telling Windows 7 professional users to UPGRADE TO Ultimate if they want bitlocker and multiple languages:

-----------------------

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/professional.aspx

With Windows 7 Professional, fewer walls stand between you and your success. You can run many Windows XP productivity programs in Windows XP Mode and recover data easily with automatic backups to your home or business network. You can also connect to company networks effortlessly and more securely with Domain Join. With all the exciting entertainment features of Windows Home Premium, it’s a great choice for home and for business.

Need to use multiple languages on your PC or help protect your data with enhanced BitLocker security? Get Windows 7 Ultimate.

-------------------------

???

Yeah, right?! How about stopping advertising with the business features and telling people about the lack of extended support? Seriously, they should rename Ultimate to Shaft Edition.

Microsoft's advertising is totally contradictory to their lifecycle policy.

I still wonder if they will really kill the ultimates this early.

wastingtimewithforums said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

Oh wow, just noticed that Windows 7 has the same boneheaded structure:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?alpha=Windows+7

 

Windows 7 Ultimate has again less support time than professional, despite having all the features of professional and being more expensive.

 

Oh, and again the advertising:

 

 

---

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/ultimate.aspx

Windows 7 Ultimate is the most versatile and powerful edition of Windows 7. It combines remarkable ease-of-use with the entertainment features of Home Premium and the business capabilities of Professional

---

 

And there they are telling Windows 7 professional users to UPGRADE TO Ultimate if they want bitlocker and multiple languages:

 

-----------------------

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/professional.aspx

 

With Windows 7 Professional, fewer walls stand between you and your success. You can run many Windows XP productivity programs in Windows XP Mode and recover data easily with automatic backups to your home or business network. You can also connect to company networks effortlessly and more securely with Domain Join. With all the exciting entertainment features of Windows Home Premium, it’s a great choice for home and for business.

 

Need to use multiple languages on your PC or help protect your data with enhanced BitLocker security? Get Windows 7 Ultimate.

 

-------------------------

 

???

Yeah, right?! How about stopping advertising with the business features and telling people about the lack of extended support? Seriously, they should rename Ultimate to Shaft Edition.

 

Microsoft's advertising is totally contradictory to their lifecycle policy.

 

I still wonder if they will really kill the ultimates this early.

I fully agree with you. It's unclean to do that.

BUT...

That being said, I think Vista was released 2007, hm, 2012, say 5 years. Maybe it's just me but those businesses who bought Ultimate are not big business and mostly smaller ones. I frankly think it is good that they are "kind'a" forced to upgrade.

I mean 5 years in the IT is like 100 years.

People talk a lot about costs, but lets be frank, the cost of an upgrade is not a lot if you are using something for earning money and have it for around 5 years.

There is also the argument about "but old software bla bla bla", I tell such people to oh please go cry me a river would ya? Virtualize the old crap and move on.

But yeah, again, I agree. I think they should extend the support for the most expensive version as well, eventhough it's "consumer" but they nevertheless advertise it for business too.

turrican said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

I fully agree with you. It's unclean to do that.

 

BUT...

 

That being said, I think Vista was released 2007, hm, 2012, say 5 years. Maybe it's just me but those businesses who bought Ultimate are not big business and mostly smaller ones. I frankly think it is good that they are "kind'a" forced to upgrade.

 

I mean 5 years in the IT is like 100 years.

 

People talk a lot about costs, but lets be frank, the cost of an upgrade is not a lot if you are using something for earning money and have it for around 5 years.

 

There is also the argument about "but old software bla bla bla", I tell such people to oh please go cry me a river would ya? Virtualize the old crap and move on.

 

But yeah, again, I agree. I think they should extend the support for the most expensive version as well, eventhough it's "consumer" but they nevertheless advertise it for business too.

Yes I think 5 years is very reasonable but that should be 5 years from Windows 7's release not Vista's release.

turrican said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

I fully agree with you. It's unclean to do that.

 

BUT...

 

That being said, I think Vista was released 2007, hm, 2012, say 5 years. Maybe it's just me but those businesses who bought Ultimate are not big business and mostly smaller ones. I frankly think it is good that they are "kind'a" forced to upgrade.

 

I mean 5 years in the IT is like 100 years.

 

People talk a lot about costs, but lets be frank, the cost of an upgrade is not a lot if you are using something for earning money and have it for around 5 years.

 

There is also the argument about "but old software bla bla bla", I tell such people to oh please go cry me a river would ya? Virtualize the old crap and move on.

 

But yeah, again, I agree. I think they should extend the support for the most expensive version as well, eventhough it's "consumer" but they nevertheless advertise it for business too.

"But yeah, again, I agree. I think they should extend the support for the most expensive version as well, eventhough it's "consumer" but they nevertheless advertise it for business too."

Another example: the downgrade rights. Some OEM versions of Vista are eligible for a downgrade to XP (basically you trade in your Vista license for an XP license). Which versions are eligible? Business AND Ultimate! And to which XP version can you downgrade? To the "business" XP version! (XP Pro)

Right from an MS site:

http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=552836

---

Only certain OEM versions of Windows Vista include downgrade rights.

• Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate include downgrade rights to:
  • Windows XP Professional, or
  • *Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, or
  • Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

---

So you can downgrade your consumer version to a business version? The correct license path would be Ultimate to Home, if Ultimate is strictly consumer.

*XP Tablet PC Editon is just a modified Professional.

The same with Win 7 actually:

----

Only certain OEM versions of Windows 7 include downgrade rights:

• Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate include downgrade rights to Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate.
• Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate temporarily includes downgrade rights to Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, or Windows XP x64 Edition.
• Other OEM Windows 7 versions (for instance, Windows 7 Home Basic and Windows 7 Home Premium) do not include downgrade rights.

-----

Again, downgrade rights from consumer to business version. Actually, if you "downgrade" Windows 7 Ultimate to Vista Business you get a longer support time! Quite a downgrade!

MS advertises the Ultimate versions everywhere as **equivalent to the business versions. EVERYWHERE. Except on the lifecycle page.

It makes no darn sense.

**Sometimes even as being IN the business category:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c83d3-833e-4f11-8cbd-699b0c164182/royaltyoemreferencesheet.pdf

Quote from PDF:

---------

----------

All pictures are from MS.

Is Ultimate available with volume licensing? If it isn't, maybe the extended support only applies to VLK editions?

Sven Groot said:

Is Ultimate available with volume licensing? If it isn't, maybe the extended support only applies to VLK editions?

Vista Ultimate was available as VLK:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/how_ultimate_is_this.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535

--

For schools with campuswide volume-licensing agreements, standard desktop distribution is Office Enterprise 2007 and Windows Vista Ultimate.

--

February 26, 2007 3:58 PM

Maybe they changed that later.

And by the way, from the same page:

----

More perplexing is an ultimate contradiction: Office products are treated differently. According to the Office 2007 life cycle support page, Home and Student Edition—a low-end version for consumers—has extended support through April 4, 2017, like its heftier siblings, save one. For some perplexing reason, Office Professional 2007 support ends one day earlier than the other versions.

So, Microsoft's ultimate version of Windows isn't worthy of Extended Support, while the low-cost consumer version of Office is? For $399 full-price retail (or $259 upgrade) buyers get the ultimate what with their purchase? Commenters, how about you answer that question.

---

W3bbo said:

Microsoft doesn't block WU, and it's more than likely they'll release a third service pack (or at least an update rollup) as it approaches the end of lifecycle date.

 

It's a sad fact that consumer softwares get earlier end-of-lifecycle dates compared to "Enterprise" stuff, but this dates back to the 9x/NT separation (where 9x had four major updates in the same space that NT had two). With the "unified" model Microsoft needs to sort this out.

"With the "unified" model Microsoft needs to sort this out."

I am wondering what's the point of this is at all. Aside from the Ultimate fiasco, what's the point in not supporting a home version of an unified OS with patches?

Patches made for Business/Pro will work on the Home version. They are completely identical, aside from the fact that some network features and security features are turned off in the home versions (turned off, but still included)

It's notable that MS never ceased to support a home version of an unified OS. The XP home versions have now the same extended support like the Pro versions. And it's obvious why: Patches for XP Pro work for Home, so the only way to disadvantage the Home versions would be by blocking newer XP patches from WU for Home versions. That would only lead to bad press (MS is artificially blocking already developed patches!) and make the internet more insecure.

Microsoft should just stop the charade, and admit that the Home versions of unified operating systems will get the same extended support (at least the patches).

The people and the press can understand if an old system will not get patches, but they will not understand the policy of witholding developed, working patches just because of the business/consumer definition. And XP shows that MS doesn't have the balls to really enforce the policy. So stop the charade.

wastingtimewithforums said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

"With the "unified" model Microsoft needs to sort this out."

 

I am wondering what's the point of this is at all. Aside from the Ultimate fiasco, what's the point in not supporting a home version of an unified OS with patches?

 

Patches made for Business/Pro will work on the Home version. They are completely identical, aside from the fact that some network features and security features are turned off in the home versions (turned off, but still included)

 

It's notable that MS never ceased to support a home version of an unified OS. The XP home versions have now the same extended support like the Pro versions. And it's obvious why: Patches for XP Pro work for Home, so the only way to disadvantage the Home versions would be by blocking newer XP patches from WU for Home versions. That would only lead to bad press (MS is artificially blocking already developed patches!) and make the internet more insecure.

 

Microsoft should just stop the charade, and admit that the Home versions of unified operating systems will get the same extended support (at least the patches).

 

The people and the press can understand if an old system will not get patches, but they will not understand the policy of witholding developed, working patches just because of the business/consumer definition. And XP shows that MS doesn't have the balls to really enforce the policy. So stop the charade.

Stepping back a level seems to explain it all well enough.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/

Of note, is that there is a new service pack support policy.

elmer said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

Stepping back a level seems to explain it all well enough.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/

 

Of note, is that there is a new service pack support policy.

All these charts and pictures are sweet but effectively Microsoft is pulling a Jedi Mind trick on us all...

This is not the OS you are looking for, move along.

elmer said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

Stepping back a level seems to explain it all well enough.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/

 

Of note, is that there is a new service pack support policy.

What does it explain?

The page repeats the same old. I know all this already.

CSMR said:

turrican said:

*snip*

Yes I think 5 years is very reasonable but that should be 5 years from Windows 7's release not Vista's release.

I have to wonder how much of a practial, real-world kind of issue is this? Most businesses explicitly did not migrate to Vista; if they even got the operating system, it was likely an OEM version with downgrade rights to XP. I know that most of the folks I've talked with simply held off until Win7 was released (and there's a lot who are following the SP1 rule, that is, they don't upgrade the operating system until at least its first service pack is released).

Unofficially, I think the Vista lifecycle is ... "Vista? Well, umm.. hey, Windows 7, now that's a fine operating system, isn't it?" The sooner that Vista can be completely swept under the virtual rug, the better for everyone all around. Poor Vista was the New Coke of Windows platforms (although Windows Me could be a contender there as well). So upgrade and don't worry, be happy!

mstefan said:

CSMR said:

*snip*

I have to wonder how much of a practial, real-world kind of issue is this? Most businesses explicitly did not migrate to Vista; if they even got the operating system, it was likely an OEM version with downgrade rights to XP. I know that most of the folks I've talked with simply held off until Win7 was released (and there's a lot who are following the SP1 rule, that is, they don't upgrade the operating system until at least its first service pack is released).

 

Unofficially, I think the Vista lifecycle is ... "Vista? Well, umm.. hey, Windows 7, now that's a fine operating system, isn't it?" The sooner that Vista can be completely swept under the virtual rug, the better for everyone all around. Poor Vista was the New Coke of Windows platforms (although Windows Me could be a contender there as well). So upgrade and don't worry, be happy!

Unofficially, I think the Vista lifecycle is ... "Vista? Well, umm.. hey, Windows 7, now that's a fine operating system, isn't it?" The sooner that Vista can be completely swept under the virtual rug, the better for everyone all around. Poor Vista was the New Coke of Windows platforms (although Windows Me could be a contender there as well).

While I'm sure that many many people inside and outside Microsoft hold the same feeling, you must keep in mind that Vista was the technology playground for pretty much everything that makes Windows 7 a good OS and so it was the one to be burdened by the growing pains et similia.

Make no mistake: without Vista, you wouldn't have Windows 7.

PaoloM said:

mstefan said:

*snip*

While I'm sure that many many people inside and outside Microsoft hold the same feeling, you must keep in mind that Vista was the technology playground for pretty much everything that makes Windows 7 a good OS and so it was the one to be burdened by the growing pains et similia.

 

Make no mistake: without Vista, you wouldn't have Windows 7.

Absolutely, but as we know, first impressions are an important thing (and tough to shake, if they're not good). Personally, I liked Vista well enough and thought that a lot of the flogging that it got in the press was unjustified. However, there's no question that Windows 7 is the better looking sibling, and not many people would mind if Vista was thrown down into the proverbial basement and never mentioned again at the dinner table.

mstefan said:

CSMR said:

*snip*

I have to wonder how much of a practial, real-world kind of issue is this? Most businesses explicitly did not migrate to Vista; if they even got the operating system, it was likely an OEM version with downgrade rights to XP. I know that most of the folks I've talked with simply held off until Win7 was released (and there's a lot who are following the SP1 rule, that is, they don't upgrade the operating system until at least its first service pack is released).

 

Unofficially, I think the Vista lifecycle is ... "Vista? Well, umm.. hey, Windows 7, now that's a fine operating system, isn't it?" The sooner that Vista can be completely swept under the virtual rug, the better for everyone all around. Poor Vista was the New Coke of Windows platforms (although Windows Me could be a contender there as well). So upgrade and don't worry, be happy!

So what?

The issue persists with Window 7 Ultimate too. And whether Vista was the new coke or not has nothing to do with the issue of quelling patches (for no good reason) for consumer versions of unified operating systems either.

"I think the Vista lifecycle is ... "Vista? Well, umm.. hey, Windows 7, now that's a fine operating system, isn't it?" The sooner that Vista can be completely swept under the virtual rug, the better for everyone all around."

This is ridiculous. Upgrading to new Windows versions would be a guess game - hm, will this version be popular?