"DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23OTGZSKYHHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I will admit that I skimmed over a large part of your post.
>
> But here are a few answers from my point of view. I'm sure you'll get
> more.
>
>
> "NetFodder" <NetFodder@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:05F75074-D4D9-454D-A7F4-536E76E7D7FE@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>>
>> What I'm confused about is the 4 versions (5 if you include enterprise
>> which
>> honestly sounds like it's suppose to be bigger and better tha Ultimate
>> but
>> it's actually a step down from what I read).[/color]
>
> Yes, I think that was a stupid marketing decision on MS's part. Only adds
> to confusion and customer disappointment. I hope that real soon they start
> cutting down the available editions.
> I would say you can't go wrong with Ultimate 64-bit, assuming you have a
> 64-bit processor.[/color]

Stupid marketing decision? Confusion & Customer disappointment?
heh - all by design. What used to be a company driven by innovation is now
just concerned with the bottom line.
It's not entirely their fault as it was bound to happen sooner or later
anyway.
A "better idea" will only get you so far, after that, it's all about "show
me the money".

Another perfect example:
Microsoft releases TWO Vista-Compatible Logo Lists (for software
compatibility)
([url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305[/url])

There's the "Certified for Windows Vista" List, then there's the "Works with
Windows Vista" List.
The first one pretty much says it will work in Vista, while the second only
IMPLIES that it MIGHT.
IOW, if it doesn't work, tough sh*t. Microsoft blames the vendors, the
vendors blame Microsoft.
You know the drill.
Hats off to the boys in marketing once again.

Vista is just Windows 95 v4.0.
same as it ever was