Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Shadow Copy works in Vista home Premium :)

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    dentaku

    Is there realy a GOOD reason why all versions of Vista create shadow copies but only certain versions actually give you a way to take advantage of them?

    I never realised that my Vista Home Premium was making shadow copies because I knew that feature wasn't available on my version.
    I just found Shadow Explorer and it works, even in Home Premium.

    This is another reason why there MUST be less versions of the next Windows OS. One Windows for regular computers and a separate server OS (like they have now). That's all they need.

  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    I agree there should be less versions of windows.  Two like you say, server and client product.  If you want domain support and shadown copies then then can be purchase (to protect MS revenue) as a download to add to the base OS....  I think this will also help MS to improve the OS once it's ship, the could provide BlueRay writting support as a download.  

    The base OS could be very basic and cost very little $50 say, then each componet can be charge for depending on how complex. Domain feature $10, etc....

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    Programous said:

    Google “Price Decimation” Its an economic term that means Microsoft gets more money when each person pays the maximum they are willing to pay for a given product.   

    You may well be correct, but I like the idea of my model.   Person purchaes Home Premium not undertanding it won't work correctly on there network, rather than purchasing a new OS and format re-install, you just purchase Domain compoent and off you go....

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Kryptos said:
    Programous said:
    *snip*
    You may well be correct, but I like the idea of my model.   Person purchaes Home Premium not undertanding it won't work correctly on there network, rather than purchasing a new OS and format re-install, you just purchase Domain compoent and off you go....
    IT shops aren't going to want to waste time downloading and buying all the extras and making their own CD images. They might as well buy a pre-made business distribution of Windows with all that stuff built-in.

    ...oh wait.

    A 100% modular version of Windows is conceivable as the Feature Management tools in WS2008 show it's possible, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing team would be that evil.

    The problem with a "pay as you go" system in this case is that 90% of the Windows users don't know what they want; and if all of them did then they would be buying less components than they do now and Microsoft's income would suffer.

    The "socialist" system of paying for everything, even if you don't use it, doesn't really affect the customer much (since there really isn't much in the $70 price Windows Home goes for) but multiply that by the tens of millions of sales Microsoft gets and it makes a huge difference to them.

    So it's actually in Microsoft's interests to not stratisfy as much and return to a simpler Home-or-Professional SKU set for Windows.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Kryptos said:
    I agree there should be less versions of windows.  Two like you say, server and client product.  If you want domain support and shadown copies then then can be purchase (to protect MS revenue) as a download to add to the base OS....  I think this will also help MS to improve the OS once it's ship, the could provide BlueRay writting support as a download.  

    The base OS could be very basic and cost very little $50 say, then each componet can be charge for depending on how complex. Domain feature $10, etc....
    You already have to pay for Client Access Licenses so It doesn't matter if your client version has 'enterprise' support or not. All client versions should be able to be used by home users or businesses.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo said:
    Kryptos said:
    *snip*
    IT shops aren't going to want to waste time downloading and buying all the extras and making their own CD images. They might as well buy a pre-made business distribution of Windows with all that stuff built-in.

    ...oh wait.

    A 100% modular version of Windows is conceivable as the Feature Management tools in WS2008 show it's possible, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing team would be that evil.

    The problem with a "pay as you go" system in this case is that 90% of the Windows users don't know what they want; and if all of them did then they would be buying less components than they do now and Microsoft's income would suffer.

    The "socialist" system of paying for everything, even if you don't use it, doesn't really affect the customer much (since there really isn't much in the $70 price Windows Home goes for) but multiply that by the tens of millions of sales Microsoft gets and it makes a huge difference to them.

    So it's actually in Microsoft's interests to not stratisfy as much and return to a simpler Home-or-Professional SKU set for Windows.
    Who said anything about download? You don't download to switch Vista versions now, the new serial number activates the functions.

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    W3bbo said:
    Kryptos said:
    *snip*
    IT shops aren't going to want to waste time downloading and buying all the extras and making their own CD images. They might as well buy a pre-made business distribution of Windows with all that stuff built-in.

    ...oh wait.

    A 100% modular version of Windows is conceivable as the Feature Management tools in WS2008 show it's possible, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing team would be that evil.

    The problem with a "pay as you go" system in this case is that 90% of the Windows users don't know what they want; and if all of them did then they would be buying less components than they do now and Microsoft's income would suffer.

    The "socialist" system of paying for everything, even if you don't use it, doesn't really affect the customer much (since there really isn't much in the $70 price Windows Home goes for) but multiply that by the tens of millions of sales Microsoft gets and it makes a huge difference to them.

    So it's actually in Microsoft's interests to not stratisfy as much and return to a simpler Home-or-Professional SKU set for Windows.
    > The problem with a "pay as you go" system in this case is that 90% of the Windows users don't know what they want;

    Solvable - come up with "package deals" for various common user scenarios (students, grandparents, developers, business users, etc., etc...)  Structure the pricing on the package deals according to the business requirements of the scenario.

    > if all of them did then they would be buying less components than they do now and Microsoft's income would suffer.

    Not necessarily.  There might be more people willing to upgrade if they could pay less and get what they wanted.  A better product is a win all 'round.

    One of my favorite parts of this idea is that componentization would generate a direct feedback loop from customers to feature teams.  Kind of like SQM.

    Testability is a bit of a pain, though, as the number of component combinations is a bit daunting.  But it should be tractable as long as the dependency trees are accurate.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    W3bbo said:
    *snip*
    > The problem with a "pay as you go" system in this case is that 90% of the Windows users don't know what they want;

    Solvable - come up with "package deals" for various common user scenarios (students, grandparents, developers, business users, etc., etc...)  Structure the pricing on the package deals according to the business requirements of the scenario.

    > if all of them did then they would be buying less components than they do now and Microsoft's income would suffer.

    Not necessarily.  There might be more people willing to upgrade if they could pay less and get what they wanted.  A better product is a win all 'round.

    One of my favorite parts of this idea is that componentization would generate a direct feedback loop from customers to feature teams.  Kind of like SQM.

    Testability is a bit of a pain, though, as the number of component combinations is a bit daunting.  But it should be tractable as long as the dependency trees are accurate.
    But isn't this the antithesis of Occam's Razor (or a bástardised version, at least)? It's scraping the bottom of the barrel: the law of diminishing returns. Microsoft will turn from a software company into a marketing company (not that it hasn't already).

    For Home Users at least, keep it simple with a single SKU; even if it is expensive because thanks to OEM agreements people will buy it anyway.


    ...and Windows Pro/Biz/Ent/Ult licenses should come with a built-in CAL.

  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    I think the CAL for  OS, CAL for server and then a CAL to connect the two is a bit much.

    Technically this model is easy to implenment as MS have already done it with Windows Embedded.  So testing shouldn't be that hard....

    I want MS to add to windows features after the product has shipped, waiting till Vista to be able to write to DVD, because XP couldn't is silly.  I want them to add value and this seems a way of doing it, without being acussed of abusing there postion in the market as they are charing for features.

    I like the idea of buying the base windows and then once it's booted and you want to add a feature pack, I'm a student for example you get these features and maybe other apps such as one note, which you purchase for $25..

    It seem to make sense to me.....

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    I bought Vista Home Premium OEM when I put my computer together.  Thought it wasn't a bad deal at the time.  I also have Home Server, and only recently wanted to remote desktop into my home system but realized quickly that Home Premium does not support that functionality.  It seems the only way for me to get RD now is to upgrade to Ultimate.  Wow, that is $160 just to get RD functionality.  That is more than Home Premium cost me.

    There should be a cheaper way to get RD but as far as I can tell there isn't.  Am I missing something?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    BitFlipper said:
    I bought Vista Home Premium OEM when I put my computer together.  Thought it wasn't a bad deal at the time.  I also have Home Server, and only recently wanted to remote desktop into my home system but realized quickly that Home Premium does not support that functionality.  It seems the only way for me to get RD now is to upgrade to Ultimate.  Wow, that is $160 just to get RD functionality.  That is more than Home Premium cost me.

    There should be a cheaper way to get RD but as far as I can tell there isn't.  Am I missing something?
    Solution: TightVNC.

    Yes... it's framebuffer based (and not a low-level device driver) but it's GPL.

  • User profile image
    dentaku

    Kryptos said:
    I agree there should be less versions of windows.  Two like you say, server and client product.  If you want domain support and shadown copies then then can be purchase (to protect MS revenue) as a download to add to the base OS....  I think this will also help MS to improve the OS once it's ship, the could provide BlueRay writting support as a download.  

    The base OS could be very basic and cost very little $50 say, then each componet can be charge for depending on how complex. Domain feature $10, etc....

    Wow, my post turned around quickly into a completely different subject Smiley

    I don't want to be able to buy any components. I want to have ONE version on Windows on the DVD and that's it. If you want to do a custom install and leave out components for some reason then that's fine but I think Ultimate should have been the only version of Vista available from the start. That way everyone will have exactly the same OS and it will be much less confusing.

    One OS for people and one OS for servers (not including embedded/phone type stuff).

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    dentaku said:
    Kryptos said:
    *snip*

    Wow, my post turned around quickly into a completely different subject Smiley

    I don't want to be able to buy any components. I want to have ONE version on Windows on the DVD and that's it. If you want to do a custom install and leave out components for some reason then that's fine but I think Ultimate should have been the only version of Vista available from the start. That way everyone will have exactly the same OS and it will be much less confusing.

    One OS for people and one OS for servers (not including embedded/phone type stuff).

    Honestly, I don't think there's a good excuse anymore not to have just one version of Windows; or at most two: Home and Server. 

    (oh and then I guess you'll need the N edition also, and a cheapo third world edition that people will skip over in order to get a pirated copy of the full version)

    Then if Microsoft wants, they can have a subscription to a Plus!/Ultimate service where you get extras without paying for each individually


  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    brian.shapiro said:
    dentaku said:
    *snip*
    Honestly, I don't think there's a good excuse anymore not to have just one version of Windows; or at most two: Home and Server. 

    (oh and then I guess you'll need the N edition also, and a cheapo third world edition that people will skip over in order to get a pirated copy of the full version)

    Then if Microsoft wants, they can have a subscription to a Plus!/Ultimate service where you get extras without paying for each individually


    Oh? I always viewed the "Plus!" products as a kind of Expansion Pack or "Companion" (as it was officially billed) for Windows rather than a bunch of extras since all of the main features in a given Plus edition were available as standard in the next edition.

    Consider:

    Plus! 95 gave us Desktop Themes, Task Scheduler, Text anti-aliasing and show-window-when-dragging, DriveSpace 3, and some other stuff.

    All of those features made it into Windows 98.

    Plus! 98 then gave us Spider Solitaire and shell-integrated ZIP support and other stuff. Except for the free AV product all of that made it into Windows ME.

    Plus! for XP was kind of the end of this since they were all media-related stuff or just bad games.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    W3bbo said:
    Matthew van Eerde said:
    *snip*
    But isn't this the antithesis of Occam's Razor (or a bástardised version, at least)? It's scraping the bottom of the barrel: the law of diminishing returns. Microsoft will turn from a software company into a marketing company (not that it hasn't already).

    For Home Users at least, keep it simple with a single SKU; even if it is expensive because thanks to OEM agreements people will buy it anyway.


    ...and Windows Pro/Biz/Ent/Ult licenses should come with a built-in CAL.

    Force a built in CAL?  What about people that use per user CALs?  Now I'm forced to buy more CALs than I need if a user has more than one machine!  Wink

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.