"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e3bc69@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>
> >> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
> >> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
> >> processors.
> >
> >   How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.
>
> It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)

Its marketing. Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
need. Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
will buy.

Software's not the only place that's done.

Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference between
certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)
> 
> Its marketing. Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
> will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
> need. Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
> will buy.

There's a difference between a "feature" that takes effort to implement, 
and an artificial limitation that exists only for the purpose of revenue 
generation.

E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003 
Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this 
difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as 
easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the 
limitation...)

> Software's not the only place that's done.

Something we can agree on...

> Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference between
> certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.

Really? I thought the difference was the leather seats...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e3d60f$1@news.povray.org...
> E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003
> Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this
> difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as
> easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the
> limitation...)

True, but my point was that if you only offer a version with everything and
the kitchen sink, less people would buy, because they don't want to pay for
what they don't need. Less sales means that the prices for the One Version
with Everything would have to be higher so make the same revenues (and
shareholders require that revenues only go up not down)

My bet is that the current multi-version hell of Vista is due to market
research on what people would buy. It would not have just been one dumb
exco's idea that stuck.

> > Look at BMW. They're a classic example. Often the only difference
between
> > certain BMW models is the software, not the engines.
>
> Really? I thought the difference was the leather seats...

*g*

Some (many?) of the models have limitations in the software to make them
slightly less powerful than the next model up

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> E.g., Server 2003 Standard 64-bit supports 32 GB RAM, while Server 2003
>> Enterprise 64-bit supports 1 TB. There is absolutely no cause for this
>> difference other than an artificially-added limitation. It's just as
>> easy to implement either. (Indeed, arguably it's *more* work to add the
>> limitation...)
> 
> True, but my point was that if you only offer a version with everything and
> the kitchen sink, less people would buy, because they don't want to pay for
> what they don't need. Less sales means that the prices for the One Version
> with Everything would have to be higher so make the same revenues (and
> shareholders require that revenues only go up not down)

Sure, offering a version that doesn't contain expensive stuff that 
people don't need is a sensible strategy. But deliberately disabling 
functionallity that doesn't cost anything, just so you can charge money 
for it? That smacks of cheating...

Take WinXP Home vs Pro. The Pro has SMB networking, the Home doesn't. If 
you're a home user, you geniunely won't give a **** that SMB isn't 
there. And SMB is a complicated technology; it costs money to make that 
stuff.

What we're talking about here is software that has the ability to do 
something, with no additional effort, but that function has been 
purposefully disabled so the manufacturer can charge money for it - even 
though it doesn't cost them anything.

> My bet is that the current multi-version hell of Vista is due to market
> research on what people would buy. It would not have just been one dumb
> exco's idea that stuck.

Oh, I'm sure they *very* carefully planned the whole thing. (How long 
has this software been in development now?)

> Some (many?) of the models have limitations in the software to make them
> slightly less powerful than the next model up

Oh, that's really cute. Is there also a black market in devices to 
"crack" the limiter and get all the available power from the engine?

(Back in my day, the less expensive car would have an engie with 
physically smaller cylinders... Which is weird, really, because that way 
it has more metal in it, and metal is presumably more expensive than air...)

But then, Intel's low-end chips are actually high-end chips that didn't 
quite pass QC, so they turned the clock speed down a bit. :-S

As should be abundantly evident, I've never owned a BMW. (And it's 
unlikely I ever will...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> So I'd use the same OS on a laptop, a desktop and a 36 processor 64 GB
> memory server?

  Yes. All priced the same. No limitations, no twisted marketing schemes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Only offer a single version loaded with features and people
> will complain that it's too expensive and contains loads of stuff they don't
> need.

  Not if you offer it at the price you are selling the crippled version.

  How many users would complain that their Windows supports multiple
processors instead of one? It's not even something you see (unless you
really have those multiple processors, in which case *not* having the
support would be quite visible).

> Offer multiple versions with different feature sets and more people
> will buy.

  I have hard time believing people are buying the Home version *because*
it has limited support for processors. They are only buying it because the
other alternatives are more expensive. It's not the features, it's the
price.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.

I love Steve Jobs' keynote at the latest MacWorld...

"Today, we're announcing the various versions of the new Mac OS.

We have the Home Basic version, which ships for $129.
Then there's the Home Premium version, which of course ships for $129.
Next up, is the Small Business Edition, shipping for $129.
And the Professional Edition ships for $129.
Not to forget, of course, the Enterprise Edition, which ships for $129.
And last, but certainly not least, the Ultimate Edition, for $129."

:)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a  
>> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two  
>> processors.
> 
>   How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.

It's not that unreasonable, and stems from how you define a single 
"computer".  Once you get into networked clusters ("Beowulf" and such), 
you could really consider several traditional PCs linked together as one 
system.  Or, you could plug several keyboards / mice / displays into a 
single computer.  Either way, companies see this as a means of avoiding 
licensing fees, being that many companies charge license fees based on 
the number of systems a particular piece of software is installed on.

MS for once took a reasonable approach to this, and decided to charge 
per core.  The vast majority of home users won't be affected. 
Professionals with dual socket workstations will buy the "Pro" version, 
but they would probably buy it anyway.  Servers will run the Windows 
Server rather than XP, so they aren't really affected either.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Sure, offering a version that doesn't contain expensive stuff that 
> people don't need is a sensible strategy. But deliberately disabling 
> functionallity that doesn't cost anything, just so you can charge money 
> for it? That smacks of cheating...

Well, there are two ways they could have done it:
1) Sell crippled version for normal price, sell regular version for more.
2) Sell regular version for normal price, sell crippled version for less.

My guess is that they actually do a combination, that is, sell the 
crippled version for less less and sell the regular version for less more.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> I love Steve Jobs' keynote at the latest MacWorld...
> 
> "Today, we're announcing the various versions of the new Mac OS.
> 
> We have the Home Basic version, which ships for $129.
> Then there's the Home Premium version, which of course ships for $129.
> Next up, is the Small Business Edition, shipping for $129.
> And the Professional Edition ships for $129.
> Not to forget, of course, the Enterprise Edition, which ships for $129.
> And last, but certainly not least, the Ultimate Edition, for $129."

Nice peice of spin...

I note with moderate interest that Mac OS X is also *cheaper* than Vista 
Ultimate... (OTOH, it only runs on a Mac, which is significantly more 
expensive than any PC.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message