Is Windows 7 Ultimate worth getting over Professional ?

M

Moogle Stiltzkin

Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
814
Any thoughts whether it's worth the premium price :confused:

What i wasn't sure about was Direct Access, cache and the search thingy.
 
I can't think of any reason.

Windows 7 ultimate is not like Vista Ultimate.

Ultimate for 7 is pretty much just a single license enterprise edition. It's not going to be on store shelves. I'm sure online retailers will have copies but your local best buy, etc. will not.

For my needs, i'm going with professional.
 
BranchCache and DirectAccess are both features requiring Windows Server 2008 R2, so unless you're using that on an enterprise network, they're not going to be beneficial to you. As the name suggests, Enterprise Search isn't going to help you find things on your local computer any better, either.
 
If you want all the media Home Premium functionality and the ability to work with domains, then go with UIltimate.
 
Uhmmm... Professional has all that: Media Center, ability to join domains, etc etc...

Windows 7 Professional is not like Vista Business even though that's the Vista version most closely associated since it sits between HP and Ultimate. Microsoft did not yank out the media capabilities with Professional as they did with Vista Business, so... for almost all enthusiasts, even hardcore users, Professional is still the better choice given the cost and the few things that Ultimate offers over Professional.
 
What are they going to have for corporate customers? I am going to order a few copies for work, and wondering what version I'm gonna get... anyone know?
 
Ultimate, just as with Vista. They left out things in Vista Business and Windows 7 Professional that would be absolutely perfect for businesses (BitLocker, etc) and the only way to get them is with Ultimate.

Microsoft has even stated to some degree that HP and Pro are meant for home users and enthusiasts, and Ultimate is still their preferred version of the OS for corporate clients.

Gotta rake in the big bucks while they can, yanno... till Office 2010 hits, the "cash cow" of Microsoft since it first appeared.
 
This is one of the few times I'd have to disagree with Joe. Unless you have the infrastructure in place to take advantage of the enterprise features, professional is fine (especially for smaller businesses and you mentioned ordering a few copies).

For home users, there is almost zero reason to get Ultimate this time (unless you really, really like bitlocker).
 
I didn't say Professional wasn't "fine," I said Microsoft will push Ultimate into the corporate sphere of I.T. just as they pushed Vista Ultimate. While Vista Business was loaded on laptops galore (and still no BitLocker, even), in all the corporate environments I've visited or done contract jobs with here in Las Vegas (several very large companies with worldwide presence), I never saw Vista Business on anything they had - it was always Ultimate, especially the laptops for the mobile workforce. If the company/companies ordered laptops and Vista Ultimate wasn't an option, as soon as they got their hands on them they'd just create a master image from a Vista Ultimate installation by a lab monkey and deploy across the fleet(s).

BitLocker is a must-have as they've all learned over the past few years with the proliferation of theft of mobile devices. I still fault Microsoft for "ripping people off" by naming Vista Business the way they did and yet they leave out aspects such as BitLocker which are almost designed from the ground up to prevent the potential loss of data because of such theft.

There's no logical or even rational reason anyone has ever been able to offer as to why Vista Business and now Windows 7 Professional doesn't come with BitLocker out of the box and only Ultimate does.

Except greed, of course... 'cause it's all about the big bucks...
 
Wow... programmersparadise.ca didn't even ask me if I wanted Ultimate Vista... they just pushed Business out to me... I figured it would be the same with 7.
 
be nice if they had one that didnt have all the media crap and so on, a nice trimmed down buisness version, just the OS and basics.
 
MrGuvernment said:
be nice if they had one that didnt have all the media crap and so on, a nice trimmed down buisness version, just the OS and basics.
Click to expand...

This isn't a problem as Media Components like Media Center, Media Player and DVD Maker are optional.
 
MrGuvernment said:
be nice if they had one that didnt have all the media crap and so on, a nice trimmed down buisness version, just the OS and basics.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 allows much more control over removing things than Vista ever did. Heck, you can even peel out IE8! :D

The fact that MS yanked all the media out of the "Business" edition and forced enthusiasts onto Ultimate probably didn't help them swallow the very large, bitter pill that was Vista before SP1. I think the inclusion of (optional) media features in the Professional Edition was a lesson learned from that mistake.
 
Unless you plan on using things like BitLocker, BitLocker2Go, and AppLocker then no Ultimate is not worth it.

Since I plan on using all three in the future well guess that means I'm getting Ultimate. ;)
 
Thx Archer and Miltent and others for your info.

nessus said:
If you want all the media Home Premium functionality and the ability to work with domains, then go with UIltimate.
Click to expand...

May i know more about the domain thingy and how exactly do you use it ? Just curious.


I'm running my own website through my QNAP 509 Pro ;) So wondering if this feature would be useful for me.


Anyway currently i am leaning toward the Windows 7 Professional :)


Yeah from the sounds of it Windows 7 Ultimate isn't what i need.
 
Everyone is forgetting the simple fact that you can put ULTIMATE on your build list, isn't that alone worth the extra $?...
 
I know it might be hard to choke down the word "Home" but the honest truth is most enthusiasts will be perfectly matched with Home Premium.
 
did I misread something??? or is the Multilingual User Interface Pack only on Ultimate, and this is the item that allows users to switch from one language to another... in other words, no dual(or more) language systems? A good deal of business run offices in multiple countries or just need to be able to work in more than one language, is this only an Ultimate feature?
 
Ultimate/Enterprise for the language (they're the same thing this time around). I doubt the poor multinationals are going to care.
 
Joe Average said:
BitLocker is a must-have as they've all learned over the past few years with the proliferation of theft of mobile devices. I still fault Microsoft for "ripping people off" by naming Vista Business the way they did and yet they leave out aspects such as BitLocker which are almost designed from the ground up to prevent the potential loss of data because of such theft....
Click to expand...

And alternatives such as TrueCrypt etc etc aren't viable alternatives why?


An extremely small proportion of users are going to need and use, as described by Vermilion above, those few 'corporate' features. But Windows isn't the only way to get that functionality. There are perfectly adequate alternatives available.
 
Because companies spending money on a product with support don't expect to have to go out to an open source third party supplier to get a product to provide functionality the OS is already capable of, I'd guess.

If Windows 7 (any version) or Vista (any version) did not offer BitLocker at all, and it was only available as a separate product that you could buy and then install it and use it on the OS, I wouldn't have a gripe here. But to arbitrarily just "turn it off" in some versions while saving it for the most expensive (read: most price gouging) version of the same OS (for all practical intents and purposes) is just bullshit.

The capability exists in all versions of Windows 7 and Vista, it's just "turned off" by default and that I have issues with. I remember watching the Vista release "event" on a streaming video the day it was released, and I found it funny to see the CEOs of Verizon and another company getting up declaring Vista Ultimate was their choice for their working fleets of laptops (they actually said this, right there on the stage) and one of the primary reasons they were moving to Vista Ultimate was BitLocker - I kid you not. It was a major selling point for them...

And a big fucking cash cow for Microsoft. Consider that even today if you go out and get a "business class" laptop or notebook PC, it'll come with what on it? Vista Business, not Ultimate - Ultimate is considered to be an optional upgrade for the OS. Dell's entire fleet of Latitudes comes with Vista Business by default or uses that XP Professional downgrade - and XP Professional itself was never supposed to be a "consumer" OS - it was the business class version of XP. XP Home was and is considered to be for consumers...

I liken this to the days when Intel released the 386/SX CPU years ago... and the people that needed the math coprocessor got fucked because of it. They paid an exorbitant amount of cash on the damned processors, and when they were told to get the math coprocessor they'd have to spend even more (sometimes over half what they paid for the 386SX to start with), they paid it.

And what did they get for their cash? Another 386, with a microscopic "switch" thrown from one setting to another inside the same exact CPU which enabled the math coprocessor that was already built into the chip to begin with. Imagine going out and buying a Core 2 Duo with one core disabled, and having to buy the same chip again where that microscopic "switch" is thrown to enable the second core... pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate it. :D

So they paid for the same processor twice... what a crock of shit that was. Same principle for me with BitLocker, which will be a sticking point for me (and many commercial clients as well) that think if you create a version of the OS called "Business" then for fuck's sake, it should offer everything that a "Business" client could need, including encryption support out-of-the-box because it's already built into the damned OS to start with.

I just think it's a shitty practice, I really do, and it'll be a negative for Microsoft forever as far as I'm concerned. Some people could care less about it, which is fine, this is my opinion and after so many decades of dealing with this crap, I'm entitled to it. :D
 
Why can't they just make 1 version, it's not like it costs them any more money, and it's not like it matters if it did. They're still gonna make a bundle anyways
 
djc5166 said:
Why can't they just make 1 version, it's not like it costs them any more money, and it's not like it matters if it did. They're still gonna make a bundle anyways
Click to expand...

That's the question asked for nearly a decade now... I could understand Windows 2000 Professional and Server - they each had unique and discrete purposes, with Pro being primarily designed for business desktops/workstations and Server being... well... for servers, of course.

98SE was firmly entrenched at that time as the consumer product, and WinME... well... it didn't last, and then they split the versions again with the introduction of XP Home and Pro, and then Windows Server 2003 coming later on. So now they've still got "consumer" class OSes and server class products, but they've basically fragged the entire consumer base, for no really good reason.

As for Vista and Windows 7 having so many SKUs... I myself agree: they should have just created one version, period, and been done with it. Nobody will ever know the exact reasoning behind it, and at this point nobody really cares.

While I have access to Windows 7 (the last leaked build that I could use with my RC keys, 7260), and I modified it to install Pro (I have my reasons), when I get Windows 7 off TechNet later next week I'll grab the Ultimate ISOs and burn off a copy for safe keeping, then I'll modify one for Pro and one for Home Premium, done.
 
I'm fully in agreement with you by the way, Joe Average. Just saying that it's not actually a practical or even sensible necessity, is all :)

djc5166 said:
Why can't they just make 1 version, it's not like it costs them any more money, and it's not like it matters if it did. They're still gonna make a bundle anyways
Click to expand...

Becuase, my friend, you also cannot understimate the power and nfluence of the humungous number of inane idiot drongos on forums like this and on blogs everywhere who will then complain about it being 'bloated' and 'cumbersome'. It's kinda crazy that most of the people doing so will actually be running the 'everything included' version themselves, of course, but that's just how it is. And the general public being what it is takes notice and reaches the 'understanding' that it really must BE bloated and cumbersome, because all those techie brainy people said so. they read it on the internet!

Add to that the fact that the general public continues to expect to get Windows for an (increasingly) comparitively lower cost than we paid in yesteryear. We got 'Windows versions' for fine tuning of feature-set and affordability. It's our own fault. We let it happen and (effctively anyway) asked for it!

It still ain't as bad as the scenario for Linux, though, where there are umpteen different distributions and umpteen different user interfaces available for each. A scenario so goddammed confusing that the general public shys away from what's a perfectly capable alternative even though it's bloodywell free!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top