Windows 10 Pro for Workstation edition

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, Denis Rakhmanov said:

The only way i see it works is them making the Core version with different "updates packages" available through MS store. But this probably won't be cost effective.

Why not just have one version, with all the features?

I mean, is there really any technical reasons for why Home can't be the host for a remote desktop session?

What is the justification for Home not being able to use BitLocker?

Why can't Pro run as a Windows-To-Go install?

Why is it not possible to run Edge on Enterprise LTSB, and why is it not possible to remove Edge on the Pro version?

 

All these different versions are just confusing and littered with artificial segmentation.

[Denis Rakhmanov]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why not just have one version, with all the features?

Why have different CPUs for one socket? AMD can make only 8c/16t cpus for AM4 platform, since every other AM4 cpus are the same, just r3 and r5 have disabled cores.

Reason is to make products with different prices to cover different groups. If MS added all the features in Home version, they couldn't make enough money to further develop stuff. If they have only Pro/workstation version not enough people would buy it and piracy increased.

They are not stupid, everything has their reasons.

[ignaloidas]

5 hours ago, LucidMew said:

you're able to buy NVDIMMs?

aperantly, you  can, even at Best Buy

https://www.bestbuybusiness.com/bbfb/en/US/adirect/bestbuy;jsessionid=6FDBF05A0E0D03850C2C00A93A3D5204.bstby3?cmd=catProductDetail&showAddButton=true&productID=BB20007135

[LAwLz]

Just now, Denis Rakhmanov said:

Why have different CPUs for one socket? AMD can make only 8c/16t cpus for AM4 platform, since every other AM4 cpus are the same, just r3 and r5 have disabled cores.

Because with physical products, you get defective ones which would result in actual money being lost if you threw them out.

 

The difference here is:

AMD: "This product is defective, but instead of just throwing it in the garbage we will sell it with some parts disabled, at a lower price".

Microsoft: "We will artificially lock features and then resell them to customers at a higher price".

 

See the difference?

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Denis Rakhmanov said:

Reason is to make products with different prices to cover different groups. If MS added all the features in Home version, they couldn't make enough money to further develop stuff. If they have only Pro/workstation version not enough people would buy it and piracy increased.

I seriously doubt they would lose soooo much money that they could no longer continue developing Windows, just because they discontinued for example the student edition and baked those features into Pro.

How many people do you think actually buy the Pro version over Home specifically because they want BitLocker? I doubt even 1% of pro users does it. How many people do you think runs LTSB specifically because they do not want Edge installed?

Again, Microsoft could trim their portfolio (by the way, keeping these many separate versions increases their overhead costs) by eliminating a lot of the illogical limitations they themselves have come up with. It would provide a far better user experience too.

[Denis Rakhmanov]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I seriously doubt they would lose soooo much money that they could no longer continue developing Windows, just because they discontinued for example the student edition and baked those features into Pro.

How many people do you think actually buy the Pro version over Home specifically because they want BitLocker? I doubt even 1% of pro users does it. How many people do you think runs LTSB specifically because they do not want Edge installed?

Again, Microsoft could trim their portfolio (by the way, keeping these many separate versions increases their overhead costs) by eliminating a lot of the illogical limitations they themselves have come up with. It would provide a far better user experience too.

I will stand with a point that they do it to be more cost efficient and every decision is calculated.

You will stand that they still should have one version.

Unfortunately both you and I don't have their financial reports, supporting yours or my thoughts, all we can do is to be couch theorists.

 

actually, i now would like to see them making one version, but free. This version would allow basic functionality, but not third party installation(basically, windows s). And many more other functions will be purchased/unlocked through store. But i expect it would be very buggy.

[Denis Rakhmanov]

30 minutes ago, Slippery Vagoo said:

now Linux there is where versions gets hard

Depends on a distro. Some distros have only one version(install/customize everything you need later, if you want), some have stable/testing/experimental branches, some have different versions based on UI, some have only source code and you need to build everything yourself.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Why not just have one version, with all the features?

Because then they cant keep on milking the big fish business customers over and over for basically the same thing with different artificial limitations...

[Guest]

High-end workstations demand this type of memory performance ?

[scottyseng]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

I've had some software that will not run on Windows Server, it's a restriction that the software devs put in it and do an OS check. Why they do this I don't know, it's a real pain when you need a more server orientated OS to run the application on because you're not a 5 PC small business.

Yeah, I noticed some programs will not install to Windows Server 2016 (or try to sell you an enterprise version). Macrium Reflect Free was one. I couldn't even get the driver to install for my sound card because of the OS check (I was really lucky there's this good open source driver for it).

6 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Microsoft, please just sell me a version that doesn't have app store bloat spying shit coming out of every hole it has on its body.  (yes I know about LTSB but so far as I can tell there's no legit way to get it)

Yeah, I just installed Windows 10 in a VM and I was like wow...so many preinstalled apps now. I got used to Windows Server not having the Windows store (or anything preinstalled really). Still find it funny Dreamspark (Microsoft Imagine) has no problem giving you Windows Server for free, but will not give you Windows 10...

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Why is it not possible to run Edge on Enterprise LTSB, and why is it not possible to remove Edge on the Pro version?

I still find it funny that Edge doesn't exist on WIndows Server (because of the way it handles updates (sorry, not too knowledgeable on server OS restrictions).

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Why not just have one version, with all the features?

I mean, is there really any technical reasons for why Home can't be the host for a remote desktop session?

What is the justification for Home not being able to use BitLocker?

Why can't Pro run as a Windows-To-Go install?

Why is it not possible to run Edge on Enterprise LTSB, and why is it not possible to remove Edge on the Pro version?

 

All these different versions are just confusing and littered with artificial segmentation.

Why doesn't QuickBooks just make one tied with all of the features? Why does Malwarebytes have a free version and a paid version when they can just roll all the features out to the free version?

 

Because this allows them to have different pricing structures for different sectors.

 

Only sell a $150 OS? They'll go bankrupt.

 

 

Targeting the business sector with a $6155 OS? Perfectly reasonable. Try selling that to home consumers though.

 

If they didn't have this artificial segregation, business users would just buy licenses for home.

[Terryv]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Why doesn't QuickBooks just make one tied with all of the features? Why does Malwarebytes have a free version and a paid version when they can just roll all the features out to the free version?

 

Because this allows them to have different pricing structures for different sectors.

 

Only sell a $150 OS? They'll go bankrupt.

 

 

Targeting the business sector with a $6155 OS? Perfectly reasonable. Try selling that to home consumers though.

 

If they didn't have this artificial segregation, business users would just buy licenses for home.

The only reason they get away with this is because they are so dominant. Linux and Mac OS both offer everything. While some versions of Linux may not have all functionality baked in, they are easily added for free.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Terryv said:

The only reason they get away with this is because they are so dominant. Linux and Mac OS both offer everything. While some versions of Linux may not have all functionality baked in, they are easily added for free.

There is a great deal of value attributed to features that are found in higher cost offerings of Windows, those do not get developed for free. It's not a question of what you can do with Linux it's about who has to spend the time implementing the features in a way that is agnostic to all use cases and networks.

 

Higher cost editions of Windows also come with support options built in and others have a cost if it's not a fault with Windows itself.

 

Not all distros of Linux are free either and other free ones have paid support offerings.

 

Mac OS in general for large computer networks simply lacks the features that Windows has to management them properly, Mac OS is great at what it does and Windows Enterprise is great at what it does.

 

If you want to fillet a fish use a fillet knife

If you want to de-bone meat use a boning knife

If you want to chop vegetables use a vegetable knife

[Sniperfox47]

23 minutes ago, Terryv said:

The only reason they get away with this is because they are so dominant. Linux and Mac OS both offer everything. While some versions of Linux may not have all functionality baked in, they are easily added for free.

MacOS doesn't offer a large number of the features of higher license Windows systems so it's not as if that's a fair comparison. Multisocket system on OSX? Nope. 

 

As far as Linux, it's a far different structure. The pricing structure of Linux systems is *very* different from Microsoft's systems and the development is mostly done by the various companies using it, because they know they'll get a return on their investment via what other companies contribute.

 

The pricing for Enterprise Linux Distributions is very similar to enterprise Windows licenses, but the difference is with Windows you have a feature gradient whereas with Linux you have a support gradient. With a community Linux Distro you have 0 support. With an Enterprise distro you do. That's pretty much the difference between RHEL and Fedora...

[Terryv]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There is a great deal of value attributed to features that are found in higher cost offerings of Windows, those do not get developed for free. It's not a question of what you can do with Linux it's about who has to spend the time implementing the features in a way that is agnostic to all use cases and networks.

 

Higher cost editions of Windows also come with support options built in and others have a cost if it's not a fault with Windows itself.

 

Not all distros of Linux are free either and other free ones have paid support offerings.

 

Mac OS in general for large computer networks simply lacks the features that Windows has to management them properly, Mac OS is great at what it does and Windows Enterprise is great at what it does.

 

If you want to fillet a fish use a fillet knife

If you want to de-bone meat use a boning knife

If you want to chop vegetables use a vegetable knife

Microsoft could offer one version of Windows for a reasonable cost and get paid for support for the higher end user base, similar to red hat or suse. This would reduce overhead from having to support multiple versions.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Terryv said:

Microsoft could offer one version of Windows for a reasonable cost and get paid for support for the higher end user base, similar to red hat or suse. This would reduce overhead from having to support multiple versions.

Two versions would be what I think will work best

• Consumer Windows that suits home usage and small businesses that supports being joined to Active Directory with some of the less applicable features for those users disabled/removed.
• Enterprise Windows that can only be obtained through a Microsoft Agreement, like Windows Enterprise is now.

[Terryv]

Just now, leadeater said:

Two versions would be what I think will work best

• Consumer Windows that suits home usage and small businesses that supports being joined to Active Directory with some of the less applicable features for those users disabled/remove.
• Enterprise Windows that can only be obtained through a Microsoft Agreement, like Windows Enterprise is now.

I'd be fine with this, as long as you don't have to buy enterprise edition in large quantities.

[Mihle]

And I have Windows 10 pro but have never used the extra features....

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Two versions would be what I think will work best

• Consumer Windows that suits home usage and small businesses that supports being joined to Active Directory with some of the less applicable features for those users disabled/remove.
• Enterprise Windows that can only be obtained through a Microsoft Agreement, like Windows Enterprise is now.

That's what I was thinking too.

I don't think there is any justification for having so many versions. I mean, just look at this shit:

 

Windows 10 Home

Windows 10 Pro

Windows 10 Enterprise

Windows 10 Education

Windows 10 Pro Education

Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB

Windows 10S

Windows 10 Pro for Workstation

 

 

That's not including the N and NK versions either (which I can't blame Microsoft for).

There are so many artificial limitations which doesn't make sense either. Like how Education supports Windows-To-Go but Pro does not. Why can't Edge run on Enterprise LTSB, but at the same time it is impossible to remove from the Pro version? Why is Windows 10 Home limited to 128GB of RAM? 

 

It's like someone at Microsoft threw darts to determine which features should be included in which edition.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

MacOS doesn't offer a large number of the features of higher license Windows systems so it's not as if that's a fair comparison. Multisocket system on OSX? Nope. 

That's odd, because we have a used dual-Xeon Mac Pro for sale at work.  I'm pretty sure that qualifies as multi-socket.  Unless you were talking quad-socket and above.

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Windows 10 Home

Windows 10 Pro

Windows 10 Enterprise

Windows 10 Education

Windows 10 Pro Education

Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB

Windows 10S

Windows 10 Pro for Workstation

 

That's not including the N and NK versions either (which I can't blame Microsoft for).

You forgot about Windows 10 Mobile.  

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You forgot about Windows 10 Mobile.  

I did not forget it. I am just pretending like it does not exist.

Fun fact, did you know there is "Windows 10 Mobile" as well as "Windows 10 Mobile Enterprise" (sometimes called Windows 10 Mobile for business)?

What's the difference between it and the regular Windows 10 mobile version? I have no fucking idea, and I actually tried looking it up. 

 

There's also Windows 10 IoT and Windows 10 Team which are hardware specific builds. You can probably count the Xbox OS as Windows 10 too.

[GoodBytes]

You forgot:

 - Windows 10 for ARM (in dev)

 - Windows 10 IoT Enterprise

[NumLock21]

So this is free upgrade?

It says available part of their fall creators update.

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

That's odd, because we have a used dual-Xeon Mac Pro for sale at work.  I'm pretty sure that qualifies as multi-socket.  Unless you were talking quad-socket and above.

You forgot about Windows 10 Mobile.  

Yes. Technically the OS supports multi-socket systems. But how many has Apple ever released?

 

And technically if you want to push your luck you might be able to hackintosh a dual-socket system. But with the questionable legality of that alongside the difficulty of getting it working is it worth it?

 

Windows Pro (often used by enthusiasts/workstations) supports the same dual-socket systems.

 

Apple straight up does not have hardware that would deserve a ~$6000/core or even ~$900/core Windows license, and if you try to hackintosh on an system with more than two sockets you better pray reeeeeeeeeeeeal hard to the Machine God.

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

So this is free upgrade?

It says available part of their fall creators update.

I don't think so. Maybe you can upgrade via the Store where you pay some fee to upgrade to it. My guess.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

These features should either be in Pro or Enterprise. A specialized version of Pro just provides more fragmentation in the Windows ecosystem.

 

Granted, that's not the case. The only real difference is the license is slightly different and it downloads a few more subsystems. It is still stupid.

It's possible this version is built off of Windows Server - much like when XP Pro x64 was released which was based off Windows Server 2003 - so it's possible there's more significant changes than just a few "subsystems".