Windows Vista Editions Comparison - Microsoft Not Telling All

Microsoft's page seems pretty accurate to me, it is a pretty good high-level overview of the differences between Vista editions. If every detailed feature like FTP and NTLM authentication were broken out on that page, it wouldn't be a very good high-level overview.

jayK said: Microsoft's page seems pretty accurate to me, it is a pretty good high-level overview of the differences between Vista editions. If every detailed feature like FTP and NTLM authentication were broken out on that page, it wouldn't be a very good high-level overview.

Sorry, but that is definitely far from accurate. The basic problem being that it leads you into believing that those are the only differences. There is no disclaimer that there might be other differences. I know that every company makes wonderful promises and then denies everything in its fine print and that has come to be accepted as fine and dandy but in this case Microsoft didn't even bother to include a fine print or disclaimer. Yes I agree with you that the idea was to provide an overview but it is so convenient for Microsoft that it forgot to tell you that it is only an overview, that it highlights only some of the differences. Look carefully, the page does not give even a hint that there are other differences. If I were to have gone and bought say Home Basic based on that table and I needed to use IIS on it, I would have been screwed.

RushnRockt said: FutureDilemma said: jayK said: Microsoft's page seems pretty accurate to me, it is a pretty good high-level overview of the differences between Vista editions. If every detailed feature like FTP and NTLM authentication were broken out on that page, it wouldn't be a very good high-level overview.

Sorry, but that is definitely far from accurate. The basic problem being that it leads you into believing that those are the only differences. There is no disclaimer that there might be other differences. I know that every company makes wonderful promises and then denies everything in its fine print and that has come to be accepted as fine and dandy but in this case Microsoft didn't even bother to include a fine print or disclaimer. Yes I agree with you that the idea was to provide an overview but it is so convenient for Microsoft that it forgot to tell you that it is only an overview, that it highlights only some of the differences. Look carefully, the page does not give even a hint that there are other differences. If I were to have gone and bought say Home Basic based on that table and I needed to use IIS on it, I would have been screwed.

Quote: "Here's a quick look at what comes in each of the editions."
Last I checked, quick does not mean incomplete or partial. Definitions of quick on the web. So there is no reason to believe that the table is a summary as you seem to think.

jayK said: FutureDilemma said: If I were to have gone and bought say Home Basic based on that table and I needed to use IIS on it, I would have been screwed.Sounds like you did get Home Basic, and now you're looking for someone to blame. If your research on which Vista version to get consisted only of a single, very high-level overview table, then you didn't do enough research.

At this point, you have several options:

- Upgrade to Vista Home Premium
- Upgrade to XP
- Install alternative web server software like Apache with PHP
No, I did not buy Home Basic so there is no question of research here. However, I still disagree with your point on research. My point is that Microsoft is presenting this information as if these were the only differences. There is no hint whatsoever that there could be other differences (no fine print, no disclaimer, no mention that it is a summary or a partial list). Further, this is the only table that they provide. There is no other comparison table linked to from the Vista product page, whether high-level or low-level, whether overview or detailed. This further reinforces the suggestion that this is all the difference that there is. So if one checks just this table then one has done adequate research. You would need to be clairvoyant to come up with the idea that there are differences that are not mentioned or even hinted at on the entire section of the site devoted to Vista.

Otherwise, like me, you would find out when you run into a brick wall when you try to use the product, and then you would do a Google search and find out. Obviously I am not the only one who went through this experience since one of the posts here linked to a forum post where somebody else had the same problem and I found several others through a Google search. Of course, the whole question of why anyone with any level of sanity would include a version of IIS that is so crippled that it can only serve error pages, is another question altogether. (Thats a might useful web server, ain't it!)

I got Home Basic in the sense that it came pre-installed on the laptop that I bought. I did not have this need at that time nor was the OS a factor at all because I also have the option to upgrade to a Business edition for free. But yes, you can say that I am looking for someone to blame because I am obviously unhappy that I had to find out in this frustrating way and waste time in doing so.

Finally, thanks for the suggestion about Apache and PHP. Thats what I am using now. What I am wondering now is what other differences are lurking under the hood to catch me unawares at the most inopportune times. For instance, the IIS comparison table shows that the number of connections is limited to 3 in Home Basic versus 10 in Business edition. I wonder if there are similar "features" built into the OS itself that would somehow limit my use of Apache+PHP. For instance, is there a limit to the number of connections, that would affect Apache, that is different under Home Basic and Business editions? If there is some such information that you are aware of, I would appreciate it if you would share it with me.

RushnRockt said: FutureDilemma said: RushnRockt said: FutureDilemma said: jayK said: Microsoft's page seems pretty accurate to me, it is a pretty good high-level overview of the differences between Vista editions. If every detailed feature like FTP and NTLM authentication were broken out on that page, it wouldn't be a very good high-level overview.

Sorry, but that is definitely far from accurate. The basic problem being that it leads you into believing that those are the only differences. There is no disclaimer that there might be other differences. I know that every company makes wonderful promises and then denies everything in its fine print and that has come to be accepted as fine and dandy but in this case Microsoft didn't even bother to include a fine print or disclaimer. Yes I agree with you that the idea was to provide an overview but it is so convenient for Microsoft that it forgot to tell you that it is only an overview, that it highlights only some of the differences. Look carefully, the page does not give even a hint that there are other differences. If I were to have gone and bought say Home Basic based on that table and I needed to use IIS on it, I would have been screwed.

Quote: "Here's a quick look at what comes in each of the editions."
Last I checked, quick does not mean incomplete or partial. Definitions of quick on the web. So there is no reason to believe that the table is a summary as you seem to think.

So what happens if you can't have both COMPLETE and QUICK? You might find out that in real life, to make things QUICK, less important facts are omitted. Periodic table of elements is a quick reference, yet it is certainly not complete, who are you going to blame?
I never said that it has to be both. My principal objection is that it is not complete, which incidentally, has nothing to do with quick in this case. What do I do when I don't get it? (1) I look for other options and if I find something else that is more satisfactory, I go with that. (2) I make a mental note of the difficulty I had with the company's products and that product in particular so I can make better informed decisions in the future. (3) I let FWers know so that they may be aware, can make better informed decisions and are able to avoid the frustration that I had to go through.

And by the way, nobody tries to suggest or imply that the periodic table is complete. They teach you in the chemistry classes that it is a summary and a very inconsistent/inaccurate one at that. I hope you remember that from your chemistry classes.