Wow ... so, I've kept my mouth shut pretty much through the whole Windows 7 thing.  I mean, why wouldn't I? I've moved on to better things for myself.

I've never really agreed with the way that Microsoft broke apart their product line.  It made sense at first.  Windows NT needed the network support and of course no home user needed that, so there was Windows 95 for those people.  But since the time of Windows 2000 roughly around the same time Milenium came out, there's really not been any need to have two different versions.

Apple offered it's OS X operating system as a single simple version.  No decisions on what your personal needs are now and what they may be in three years, because you get everything in one package.

I've had several arguments discussions with people (one in particular) that understood the reasons for keeping the two separate.  "A home user doesn't have the same needs a business user has."  This is something I just can't get behind.

During my time working as a consultant I can't tell you how many times walked in to a small, business, office and the users in the office were using Windows XP Home on their computers.  Of course these are the same customers who need to have CPA remote into the computer using terminal services during the workday.  Well, he can't.  Not unless the local user just gives up control to the CPA leaving him unable to do anything.

Now comes Vista.  Four different version?  Why?  What purpose does it server?

I think what finally got me though, was an article I read today.  The pre-sale for Windows 7 upgrades doesn't include Windows 7 Ultimate.  If you spent the most money for your flawed version of Vista, you have to pay even more to upgrade out of it.

I suppose the only good thing I can say about this is that I can show my parents how right I was to have them not order Vista on their new computer last year.  Maybe I'll have them running Linux in the next few years.