Yeah I definitely agree. I can't believe they got it down to 3. But I also can't help thinking "what the hell. haven't they learned?"
It probably makes them more money overall. But with the cost of user confusion and possible frustration. I guess that's a tradeoff they're willing to make. Which is why I won't buy it for $100 bucks.
I don't think there's going to be much, and I'd say any, confusion.
Firstly Windows 8 RT is only going to be pre-installed and only on ARM devices. So you can't decide to buy it at all.
All home PCs and consumer laptops people will have Windows 8 installed already. Therefore people won't need to make a decision.
Businesses will be able to use Window 8 or the Pro version if they require the more advanced encrpytion or domain management features. (I can also see some high end business laptops having this installed.)
Enterprise users will have their computer installed for them with the Enterprise SKU.
So really there will be no confusion on the users side, the most complicated choice of the whole lot will be for small businesses trying to decide between the normal or Pro version, but I'm sure there will be an upgrade path.
Well, if you look at the text at the bottom of the table, they've actually got it down to four, Windows 8 Enterprise will still exist as a separate SKU.
So really they've only eliminated one edition (Ultimate) and changed the name of another (Starter -> RT).
Not that it isn't an improvement. And the simplified naming is a big deal as well. Seriously, who thought "Home Premium" was a good idea? Premium compared to what?
Windows 7 Starter was the edition for low-power devices. Previously, that meant netbooks, now it means tablets with ARM processors.
The market segments are not identical, I realize that, but they're similar, hence my comment about basically renaming "Starter" to "RT". In fact, based on previous reporting, RT will even be targeted at "Home" users, which is also the same as Starter.
I didn't mean they literally renamed the product, just that RT will now occupy a similar market position to that previously occupied by Windows 7 Starter.
Not even a little bit. Win7 Starter was aimed at people who wanted a dirt-cheap netbook, with prices starting at about $250. It didn't even come with Aero.
Windows RT is aimed at people who want a tablet. This is not the same market. This is the set of people who currently shell out $500 and up to buy an iPad, twice as much as a netbook.
This is not the same market, and it's not a renaming of the cheapest OS. Starter was the most stripped-down OS. RT is actually the most feature-rich, due to the inclusion of Office. There's a bit of overlap, but only in the same way that there's overlap between people who buy a netbook and people who buy a ThinkPad.
Maybe we differ in our definitions of "feature-rich"...
"""
Microsoft has long said that WOA will not include an x86 emulator, so legacy applications would never run directly on the platform, but there was always the possibility that existing desktop applications could be recompiled. That option is now unambiguously eliminated, with Microsoft saying "WOA does not support running, emulating, or porting existing x86/64 desktop apps." Office is a special, unique case. All third-party applications for WOA will be Metro applications delivered via the Windows Store, and must meet the restrictions imposed on those applications.
""" (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/02/windows-8-on-a...)
Then there's this...
"""
Touting the long battery life of ARM-based devices, the guide tempers expectations: "Although the ARM-based version of Windows does not include the same manageability features that are in 32-bit and 64-bit versions, businesses can use these power-saving devices in unmanaged environments." That means ARM devices won't be able to be added to Active Directory domains and have their user access managed by system administrators, or be remotely managed through Microsoft's System Center environment.
""" (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/02/windows-8-for-...)
Sorry for the long quotes.
Anyway, my point is that RT is targeted at "home" users looking for a portable device, same as Starter was. Price point really doesn't come into it.
Netbooks aren't even a factor any more. Go check Newegg, there are basically only two models, with some spec options, still available unless you buy refurb. Tablets have taken over the really-small-but-still-afforable-computer segment and many customers who would have purchased a netbook a few years ago will now consider a tablet.
Id say we definitely disagree about the definition of "feature-rich" if you consider domain join to be a bigger feature than the inclusion of Office.
As for not including an x86 emulator, that would be a wasted nonfeature. Emulating x86 on ARM would be painfully slow, to the point that it's inclusion would likely be worse than its exclusion. Can you imagine how many people would complain about Windows RT if it promised x86 compatibility, yet was unable to run any modern games, or Photoshop, or anything, really, that demands a powerful processor?
I still disagree that Starter was aimed at the same market as tablets. Netbooks are just crappy laptops. Tablets are a different experience altogether. The key selling feature of the netbook was low price, with portability being next. Tablets aren't really in the low price competition. The iPad starts at the same price as a reasonable laptop, and goes up in price to match pretty good laptops.
It probably makes them more money overall. But with the cost of user confusion and possible frustration. I guess that's a tradeoff they're willing to make. Which is why I won't buy it for $100 bucks.