Windows 7 Professional

Though Microsoft touts this as the perfect version of Windows for small businesses, I'm having trouble seeing why any business would want it.

Any small business that's large and/or technologically sophisticated enough to have a domain probably also has either SA or a volume license agreement, in which case they might as well just get Windows 7 Enterprise.

Any small business that's small enough to not have a domain likely won't need any of the other features in Professional either. In fact, they'd be best off just sticking with whatever version of Windows came with the laptop, which is most likely Home Premium.

 

There are plenty of computers that are bought without a volume licensing agreement, yet would need to join a domain, like yours truly.

 

Why would anybody be interested in what it is you have trouble seeing? Quite obviously thousands and thousands of businesses have no such trouble.

 

I do feel there are an unnecessarily large amount of version of Windows.

 

The various versions of win7 can pretty much be boiled down to

domain capable or not
msft virtualxp or not
volume licensed or not

 

All domain capable versions are also virtual xp capable, so that's one more thing that can be boiled down

 

So 5 editions of Win7 are too much for you to keep track of even though you'll probably never use more than one of them?

Seems kind of petty.

 

I think he prefers XP editions layout:
- Home
- Professional
- Professional - Enterprise/volume license
- Media Center
- Media Center 2004
- Media Center 2005
- Tablet PC
- Professional 64-bit
- Professional 64-bit Itanium
- Windows XP for Embedded Systems
- Windows XP Embedded
- Windows Embedded for Point of Service
- Windows Fundamentals
- XP starters

Pick your edition!

 

Windows 7 Ultimate is "only" $20 more than Windows 7 Professional on the retail shelf. Sure I can buy me a nice lunch with $20. A small business with five computers can save $100 by installing the Pro edition.

Well...I still think the Pro edition can be eliminated (although I prefer the moniker "Professional" over "Ultimate"). BitLocker also seems to be a nice feature for the business.

 

Yes but OEM-speaking, Ultimate is $50 more. Pro is $150 and Ultimate $200.

And on the student deal, pro is the same price as home prenium

 

Oh, I didn't know that. So it would be better off if MS eliminates the Ultimate and add BitLocker & MUI to the Professional while keeping the current price tag (or make it even lower!).

 

Remember, that Ultimate isn't being marketed nearly as hard as in Vista, because Windows 7 returned to the XP way of having each version's features "stack on top" of each others. (EX: W7 Pro includes all the media features from W7 Home Premium)

Basically the only reasons Ultimate exists is for OEM's who feel that ultimate branding will give their high end model's brand cachet, for special "ultimate bundles" that OEM's might do from time to time, and for diehard enthusiasts who really feel like they need 34 diff. language packs /sarcasm...sort of. There's Bitlocker but....for most people that's not compelling enough.

The marketing push is similar to XP: Home Premium for Home, Professional for Business/College Students who's school's make them get it. Windows 7 Starter isn't being marketed much (if at all) given it's niche nature

 

Well said, +1:
Just to add additional information, Windows 7 Starter, is virtually a free Windows, for OEMs to use Windows instead of Linux. Start edition of Vista/XP used to be for emerging markets, where basically few could afford Windows, reducing significantly pirated copies, which may contain virus, key-loggers, worms, spy-wares, or worse rootkits.

 

The one thing that this thread misses is this...

Windows Home Premium is designed for Consumers (Home Network, no domain join, etc.), Windows Professional is targeted at Small to Midmarket (Windows Small Business Server or Windows Server Essentials, both are Active Directory Domains, includes RDP - not just the RDP Client and EFS) and Ultimate is a retail version of Windows Enterprise (with Bitlocker Support), these are the only retail SKUs each build on each other.

Starter is only OEM, Basic is only in Emerging Markets and Enterprise is only Volume License...

Jeff

 

I just want to chime in to say that there are plenty of small businesses that have domains (using SBS 2008) that don't use VLs for the 10-15 computers they have. They use the SBS mostly for Exchange and file sharing.

 

I wish bitlocker was standard in Home Premium and up (assuming it actually works and NEVER corrupts data). I'd really like to be running encrypted, particularly on a laptop, but it's weird you have to spring for Ultimate.

 

have you looked into truecrypt?

 

I used to use it under XP, but got data corruption on both internal and external drives under Vista and 7, so quit.

 

So what is better for the normal, everyday user? Windows 7 Ultimate or Windows 7 Professional? I'm guessing Professional?

 

Correct, Windows 7 Professional is better for the everyday user. Most people could actually get by with Home Premium though without issue.

 

Fantastic! Thanks a lot!

 

Pro doesn't give most people anything extra they'd need. The main thing is just the ability to join domains. You don't even need to join a domain to use domain resources, nad obviously unless you're using it at work and your work uses Windows domains, that's entirely worthless. (I don't join the domain even though I could...absolutely do not want to.)

The other main thing is a free copy of XP for Virtual PC. Virtual PC (and some other programs like it) are already free, and of limited use anyway for most people.

The one thing that actually sounds useful is Bitlocker, but you have to get Ultimate to have that. (And I haven't actually used it, to vouch for whether it gets corrupted, impacts speed, etc.)

 

the current implementation of bitlocker was cracked a week or so ago........

 

Seriously? Well, unless that gets patched, that makes Ultimate pointless :lol:

 

That's not windows's fault though.

 

This is false.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9780148

 

This is the TPM chip itself, and required quiet some time to work on the computer and specific - very hard/lucky - condition to achieve this. In other words nearly impossible. Bit-drive-encryption with file encryption of Windows (using a strong account password - file encryption built-in Windows uses the account password), or custom certificate use, and you are really well protected, of course.. everything is 100% hackable, as long as 1 person can decrypt the files, then it's hackable.

 

Bitlocker only allows saving encryption key to TPM by default. You can use policy editor to enable usb encryption key.

 

I'm going to stab the next person who quotes this article. For one, very little is known about the vulnerability itself, whether it affects all TPM chips, whether it even all the data in the TPM chip itself can be decrypted, etc etc.

Second, only people who actually know about computers should be able to talk about security. The fact that this article didn't create a massive panic through the security community, who are the experts, tells me this "vulnerability" has a very very limited application.

Not even the sensational Wikipedia call this a true vulnerability in Bitlocker. And if not even Wikipedia picks up on this opinion, then you know for sure it's horsecrap.

Edit:

For those who don't closely follow computer security news, the "vulnerability" can be also done after nine months of work and a electron microscope. Like I said. Only knowledgeable people should ever quote that article.

 

Ooooooh, cool. Thanks, yeah that TPM hack isn't a failure of Bitlocker. I thought he meant Bitlocker had been cracked (which would be weird, given I'd assume it's using AES or whatever).

 

Yeah, you aren't going to brute force it anytime soon.

Seriously. The Internet can be a joke. Any dude on a computer can type an article, conjure up doomsday scenarios and it get emailed around like the frggin Bible.

Any dude with even more useless time on his hands will conjure up even crazier scenarios. While knowledge is limited, creativity is endless.

 

Since we are talking about whether Professional is a worthy version....

I was going to think so... until I read the wikipedia page on windows 7 Editions.

The one feature I wanted, was AERO remoting. Not in Pro.

This alone forced me to Ultimate.Didn't care for bitlocker, or applocker, or unix compatibility tosh....

I WAS going to buy Professional for its Remote Desktop services since Home Pemium can't/won't act as the host. (Same with Vista HP)

I often Remote Desktop my laptop to my main pc that contains the majority of my data and music. Saves duplicating work, and I can use the desktop as if I was there. Performance is great.

But I WANTED the AERO experience while doing it.

Only for Ultimate or Enterprise apparently.

So one step forward for Professional, and one (admittedly minor but ugly) step back.

 

That's really weird, but if you're only connected to the desktop from the laptop, the laptop could be running Home Premium. It's the desktop that needs the higher end version.

 

This is correct. The host needs the ultimate.