Even though Ultimate is the most expensive and contains all the features of Business.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/how_ultimate_is_this.html
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/how_ultimate_is_this.html
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista Ultimate support cycle is less than Vista Business
- Thread starter Gatticus
- Start date
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
So Ultimate isn't eligible for extended (PAID) support? So what? Would the average Vista Ultimate user actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars for Microsoft to write custom hotfixes for an older operating system? That's all extended support is - it's the period of time where Microsoft will keep Software Engineers on staff to write custom hotfixes at your expense.
Chances are, anyone who buys Vista Ultimate is a power user and/or enthusiast and they will upgrade to the next OS by 2012...
Now, if you're a large business and have 10,000 copies of Vista Business deployed, and you encounter a show-stopping bug in your desktop OS, you will gladly pay $10k+ to have Microsoft address your issue and write a hotfix for you.
But thank you for bringing this article to our attention
Chances are, anyone who buys Vista Ultimate is a power user and/or enthusiast and they will upgrade to the next OS by 2012...
Now, if you're a large business and have 10,000 copies of Vista Business deployed, and you encounter a show-stopping bug in your desktop OS, you will gladly pay $10k+ to have Microsoft address your issue and write a hotfix for you.
But thank you for bringing this article to our attention
Consumers will upgrade or swap out OSes much sooner than businesses or commercial clients will.
Consider a single individual, aka "Joe Average Enthusiast, consumer that happens to own a computer" is now looking at buying Vista over having used XP for several years now for the cost of a paycheck or two.
Contrast that with "Joe Average Business Owner, businessman with a fleet of a few hundred if not a few thousand machines working just damned fine because he's got Mean Joe Cool, geek that knows his shit, taking care of the fleets of hardware" and spending bookoo freakin' bigtime moolah in the process and that becomes a significant financial outlay.
So, in those perspectives, it's easy to see why the Business/Enterprise support timeline is longer - in fact it's twice as long, as it should be. Ultimate really isn't designed for commercial clients - it's primarily a multimedia monster OS with a gaming lean to it.
Consider a single individual, aka "Joe Average Enthusiast, consumer that happens to own a computer" is now looking at buying Vista over having used XP for several years now for the cost of a paycheck or two.
Contrast that with "Joe Average Business Owner, businessman with a fleet of a few hundred if not a few thousand machines working just damned fine because he's got Mean Joe Cool, geek that knows his shit, taking care of the fleets of hardware" and spending bookoo freakin' bigtime moolah in the process and that becomes a significant financial outlay.
So, in those perspectives, it's easy to see why the Business/Enterprise support timeline is longer - in fact it's twice as long, as it should be. Ultimate really isn't designed for commercial clients - it's primarily a multimedia monster OS with a gaming lean to it.
Some people buying Ultimate are business customers. They bought ultimate because they wanted the complete package but now they find out they won't get extended support like they probably thought they would. Yes, some business customers did buy Ultimate instead of Business. Nice spin doctoring up there though.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
And those same buisnes customers have different TCO expectations than mr corpration that would never buy the cutting edge software.
If your buisness purchased ultimate already and has a mass deployment of it already and are miffed that you didn't research the support timeline for the product and expect to use Ultimate for the next 10 years. Then your IT staff pulled a lemon on you and needs to be sacked for compitent employees.
If your CEO and a few other exects demanded vista and wanted ultimate because it looks good and you built a select subset of laptops and now everyone wants one and your boss is coming saying do this. And you DIDN'T show him why this was a bad idea... especially at this time... then again... sacked.
But if you are a small buisness with a system refresh done ever 2-3 years on average and you like cutting edge. Then more power to you!
If your buisness purchased ultimate already and has a mass deployment of it already and are miffed that you didn't research the support timeline for the product and expect to use Ultimate for the next 10 years. Then your IT staff pulled a lemon on you and needs to be sacked for compitent employees.
If your CEO and a few other exects demanded vista and wanted ultimate because it looks good and you built a select subset of laptops and now everyone wants one and your boss is coming saying do this. And you DIDN'T show him why this was a bad idea... especially at this time... then again... sacked.
But if you are a small buisness with a system refresh done ever 2-3 years on average and you like cutting edge. Then more power to you!
The one thing that I simply find absolutely mind-blowingly stupid here (and this is my own Vista bashing so, "you know who" can stuff it when he/she/it decides to respond as we all know he/she/it will):
Vista Business is designed as the replacement for Windows XP Professional, the standard workstation OS for several years now, taking over from Windows 2000 Professional over time. But, and this is the pissy part:
In all the recent instances of corporate laptops being stolen, with very valuable and sometimes highly confidential personal data on them, Microsoft for some reason in their infinite stupidity - yes, this is a pooch job supreme - decided not to have BitLocker encryption included in the Business edition of Vista.
Now, call me stupid and slap me with a trout, but I think that's a pretty bold and brash thing for them to have done: they just said "Ok, here's the replacement for XP Pro, it's ready to roll out in your fleets of desktops and particular your laptop/notebook fleets for your mobile workforce. Uhhmmm... yes, we offer BitLocker, but only in Ultimate. How much? Well, we'll sell you Business for <insert volume pricing for Vista Business here> or... if that BitLocker is really what you want, we'll sell you Ultimate for <insert volume pricing for Vista Business here and bump it on the order of 50%>."
The most important feature these days, in my opinion, for a mobile workforce obviously is a fleet of laptops/notebooks, but without BitLocker keeping an eye on the data on the machines, what good is it?
I also found it funny that in the Business Launch event near the end of November that Steve Ballmer was talking with CEOs from Verizon and a few other major companies in today's business world and they were all harping Ultimate for their companies instead of Business.
Gee, I wonder why...
Vista Business is designed as the replacement for Windows XP Professional, the standard workstation OS for several years now, taking over from Windows 2000 Professional over time. But, and this is the pissy part:
In all the recent instances of corporate laptops being stolen, with very valuable and sometimes highly confidential personal data on them, Microsoft for some reason in their infinite stupidity - yes, this is a pooch job supreme - decided not to have BitLocker encryption included in the Business edition of Vista.
Now, call me stupid and slap me with a trout, but I think that's a pretty bold and brash thing for them to have done: they just said "Ok, here's the replacement for XP Pro, it's ready to roll out in your fleets of desktops and particular your laptop/notebook fleets for your mobile workforce. Uhhmmm... yes, we offer BitLocker, but only in Ultimate. How much? Well, we'll sell you Business for <insert volume pricing for Vista Business here> or... if that BitLocker is really what you want, we'll sell you Ultimate for <insert volume pricing for Vista Business here and bump it on the order of 50%>."
The most important feature these days, in my opinion, for a mobile workforce obviously is a fleet of laptops/notebooks, but without BitLocker keeping an eye on the data on the machines, what good is it?
I also found it funny that in the Business Launch event near the end of November that Steve Ballmer was talking with CEOs from Verizon and a few other major companies in today's business world and they were all harping Ultimate for their companies instead of Business.
Gee, I wonder why...
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
Ooo that is a good one. Didn't even consider bitlocker was not a part of the buisness license.
Really I think MS will have to make a change for that one. Time shall tell eh?
Really I think MS will have to make a change for that one. Time shall tell eh?
So Ultimate isn't eligible for extended (PAID) support? So what? Would the average Vista Ultimate user actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars for Microsoft to write custom hotfixes for an older operating system? That's all extended support is - it's the period of time where Microsoft will keep Software Engineers on staff to write custom hotfixes at your expense.
Chances are, anyone who buys Vista Ultimate is a power user and/or enthusiast and they will upgrade to the next OS by 2012...
Now, if you're a large business and have 10,000 copies of Vista Business deployed, and you encounter a show-stopping bug in your desktop OS, you will gladly pay $10k+ to have Microsoft address your issue and write a hotfix for you.
But thank you for bringing this article to our attention
If I have 10,000 copies of a MS product I already paid my dues, and MS better get off their ass and fix this shit NOW.
That would be my attitude if I was in situation you describe.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Yes they will fix it NOW.
But in 2014, they will not (for free)!
(Which is what we're talking about here in case you didn't notice)
I'm still trying to figure out that move - it's classic Microsoft that's for sure, and it reminds me of Intel's crap they pulled on unsuspecting customers years since past with the 286/386/486 math co-processor debacles.
"Here's our best processor, the 386SX/486SX!!! Crunches numbers really fast, but if you pay <insert ridiculous dollar amount here> we'll upgrade you to the 386DX/486DX and you'll really fly!!!"
Man, I was building and selling 25 machines a day when that happened, making money hand over fist, and almost feeling bad about doing it because Intel was pretty much fucking over their entire customer base and the customers just smiled and said, "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!"
The difference between the 386SX/486SX and the 386DX/486DX? The math coprocessor, obviously. The real difference? A nano-switch inside the processor core was either on or off - that's it. That's the difference. They made it sound like you were buying an entirely new processor if you upgraded from an SX to a DX; what you ended up doing in the long run was buying the same processor twice and only getting half your money's worth.
What a rip-off...
That's how I feel about the Business/Ultimate BitLocker debacle that's going on right now. It's obvious that Business is supposed to replace XP Professional; even Microsoft aludes to that fact in numerous descriptions of Business and how it's most closely associated with XP Pro, but...
With the sheer importance of BitLocker and its value to business customers with - as stated before - very valuable hardware, confidential data that most of the time has incalculable value itself, etc... how the hell can Business not have BitLocker support? It's just inconceivable to me, really, and I've been at this "game" for a long damned time.
I am just bewildered at BitLocker being left out, or more properly termed disabled and non-functional in Vista Business. It's just... well... bad business, I'd say.
"Here's our best processor, the 386SX/486SX!!! Crunches numbers really fast, but if you pay <insert ridiculous dollar amount here> we'll upgrade you to the 386DX/486DX and you'll really fly!!!"
Man, I was building and selling 25 machines a day when that happened, making money hand over fist, and almost feeling bad about doing it because Intel was pretty much fucking over their entire customer base and the customers just smiled and said, "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!"
The difference between the 386SX/486SX and the 386DX/486DX? The math coprocessor, obviously. The real difference? A nano-switch inside the processor core was either on or off - that's it. That's the difference. They made it sound like you were buying an entirely new processor if you upgraded from an SX to a DX; what you ended up doing in the long run was buying the same processor twice and only getting half your money's worth.
What a rip-off...
That's how I feel about the Business/Ultimate BitLocker debacle that's going on right now. It's obvious that Business is supposed to replace XP Professional; even Microsoft aludes to that fact in numerous descriptions of Business and how it's most closely associated with XP Pro, but...
With the sheer importance of BitLocker and its value to business customers with - as stated before - very valuable hardware, confidential data that most of the time has incalculable value itself, etc... how the hell can Business not have BitLocker support? It's just inconceivable to me, really, and I've been at this "game" for a long damned time.
I am just bewildered at BitLocker being left out, or more properly termed disabled and non-functional in Vista Business. It's just... well... bad business, I'd say.
The reason Bit-Locker isn't in the Business version I expect is because Corporations don't want their employees being able to encrypt their data. Remember Microsoft released a free download for a data encryption prog last year? It was pulled because the Corporations complained that it would enable their employees to encrypt their data which they didn't want for various reasons.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
Ok just checked. Bitlocker is available on windows vista enterprise and windows vista ultimate.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/enterprise/default.mspx
Is the link for Enterprise.
So that is interesting. Buisness I guess is targeted to small buisness. And Enterprise to those worried about corporate espionage.
Makes sense actually. But gives too many varient OS's in my opinion.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/enterprise/default.mspx
Is the link for Enterprise.
So that is interesting. Buisness I guess is targeted to small buisness. And Enterprise to those worried about corporate espionage.
Makes sense actually. But gives too many varient OS's in my opinion.
We just upgraded about 20 machines to Vista Business and it does have Bit-Locker .. Please do your research if you look into the Microsoft Website The business version of Vista has always had bit locker. I know because we have it on our laptops and it works.
The article says 2012...that is a lifetime for any OS cycle.
By that time 99% of everyone in this forum will have moved on anyways.
As for business users that time will be longer, but again five years is
a lifetime. We used win95 for four years where I'm employed and that is
the longest I've ever seen. Still have a couple for Win2000 servers also
but there dated hardware wise anyways.
By that time 99% of everyone in this forum will have moved on anyways.
As for business users that time will be longer, but again five years is
a lifetime. We used win95 for four years where I'm employed and that is
the longest I've ever seen. Still have a couple for Win2000 servers also
but there dated hardware wise anyways.
Tetrahedron
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,579
good thing i purchased 2 copies of business then for my machines w00t!
Don't get me wrong but for most of us the Vista Home Premum is good for us media gurus nad the business is okay for business travlers and home networks that have a server or domain. besides you can get added software for free such as the free media portal that can handle the media part.
More the bit about not wanting employees to be able to encrypt willy-nilly, I'd have thought. Large corporations which want to guard against 'corporate espionage' are unlikely to choose BitLocker as their solution, IMO, and would likely disable the feature as part of the deployment anyway. If security of sensitive data is a mandatory requirement there are FAR better commercial alternatives available than the freebie BitLocker!
Vista Ultimate is mcWindows for the personal milieu. Pull out the pickle and chuck it in the bin if you don't want to eat it. Vista Enterprise is mcWindows for the corporate world. Pull out the pickle and chuck it in the bin if you don't want to eat it. In the grander scheme of thing BitLocker is a 'b grade' pickle anyway.