Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 20:55 UTC
Windows Windows 7 Starter Edition, a sort of My First Operating System, always carried with it a massive braindead bug feature that limited the amount of applications you could simultaniously have open at just three. Yes, past tense, because someone over in Redmond apparently looked up and smelled the roses, and suggested removing this silly limitation. And so they did, according to Paul Thurrot.
Order by: Score:
Comment by poundsmack
by poundsmack on Fri 22nd May 2009 21:47 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

"There is still no word from Microsoft as to what version will actually be the preferred option for netbooks in the western world."

thats not true, their aim is for home or premium. they made that clear when they said it flat out. it was the whole purpose for limiting the starter edition in the first place, forcing you to pay out more for more functionality.

marketing tactics aside, i am glad they did away with the 3 app limit. the OEM's have been in discussion with them on the for over 2 months claiming it would make it hard for them to sell the OS and would lead to many returns and customer dissatisfaction.

Reply Score: 3

I don't understand !
by boulabiar on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:16 UTC
boulabiar
Member since:
2009-04-18

Sorry but does you mean that Microsoft don't let consumers run more than navigator, document writer and pdf viewer ?
What if I want to run a music app ?

I really don't think it would courageous to do this crap... I can't even imagine...

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't understand !
by sakeniwefu on Sat 23rd May 2009 00:01 UTC in reply to "I don't understand !"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

That was their idea, it seems like an okay limitation, that most people could live with, to keep the poor wanting a real version.
However somewhere along the line they realized that once three malware programs(or OEM crap) are "installed", the user is no longer able to use any regular program at all and might get very angry which is never good for PR.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I don't understand !
by wawrzyn on Sat 23rd May 2009 19:44 UTC in reply to "I don't understand !"
wawrzyn Member since:
2009-03-24

Hmm... Notepad, Windows Media Player and Paint. Everything on your brand new 4 GB notebook! Buy it now!

Reply Score: 2

Can we say "money grab"?
by phoenix on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:17 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Talk about over-differentiation for no good reason other than to try and milk the consumer for as much as possible, as many times over as possible.

You'd think, by now, they would have learned their lesson. They had it right back in the NT 3/4 days, when there was a client OS and a server OS. Done. KISS.

With these SKUs, that puts them at what, almost 10 variations on the same OS? Ridiculous is an understatement.

They really should reduce it down to three SKUs: server, business, home.

Come on, MS, it's not rocket science. Get the bean counters out of marketing, get the marketing droids out of the dev groups, and get the devs back to working on nice, simple, clearly delineated products.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Can we say "money grab"?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "Can we say "money grab"?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They really should reduce it down to three SKUs: server, business, home.


On the desktop side, Home and Professional would do - and we here in the west will see only Windows 7 Home Premium and Professional, so we're covered. The rest of the world - sadly - is not.

The server world is different. A small company really needs a different solution than say a big web 2.0 company, and they both need a different solution than schools, and even those need something else than the HPC market, and so on.

For the server world, a component model would be best. You select which features you need, MS rolls an image from that, and sells it to you. This way, everyone could buy JUST what they needed. Need more components? Just buy them, and add them to your installations.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Can we say "money grab"?
by poundsmack on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:49 UTC in reply to "Can we say "money grab"?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is not a stupid company and are fairly good at making money any way they can. that being said, they stick with aproaches that make them the most revenu with the least amount of effort. the multiple sku thing works for them. sure its anoying to us knowledgeable customers, but to the masses its fairly transparent.

That being said, marketing is either the first or the last thing in a company that gets tranformed when there is a shifting in economic tide. MS has changed their game a bit on the developer end being more more open about the OS and its developemnt and so on. But it comes as no suprise that their marketing and sales department do not share the same game plan and are still playing the, "milki the customer for all their worth" game. But, as vista and XP proved, it works for them (sadly) so until it stops working as a profitable marketing tacktic they willl likely just keep running with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Can we say "money grab"?
by gustl on Sat 23rd May 2009 18:26 UTC in reply to "Can we say "money grab"?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

They really should reduce it down to three SKUs: server, business, home.


Why even that?
With Linux distros you always get the full package. The ultimate server+desktop+home edition.
I do not see a reason why a Windows user at home should not be willing to mount an NFS share from some other machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Can we say "money grab"?
by Asystole on Sat 23rd May 2009 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Can we say "money grab"?"
Asystole Member since:
2006-03-27

And if there was one big do-everything version, you'd be complaining about bloat.

Reply Score: 2

Don't bother, Microsoft
by reduz on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:32 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

We people of the 3rd world will keep using pirated version of Windows instead.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Don't bother, Microsoft
by h3rman on Fri 22nd May 2009 23:58 UTC in reply to "Don't bother, Microsoft"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

We people of the 3rd world will keep using pirated version of Windows instead.


That's exactly what they want.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by dcibils on Sat 23rd May 2009 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't bother, Microsoft"
dcibils Member since:
2005-12-28

"We people of the 3rd world will keep using pirated version of Windows instead.


That's exactly what they want.
"

why?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Simply put: Because every single pirated copy of Windows being used means one less user is using an alternate platform such as Linux or OS X. Obviously, Microsoft would rather every copy of Windows be bought and paid for... but failing that, they'll settle with pirated copies being used, as it still helps to prop up their dominant position and vendor lock-in.

Edited 2009-05-23 01:25 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[4]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by dreamlax on Sat 23rd May 2009 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Because every single pirated copy of Windows being used means one less user is using an alternate platform such as Linux or OS X.


Maybe if you exclude people who don't dual boot, and those that own more than one computer with another operating system on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by h3rman on Sat 23rd May 2009 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

"Because every single pirated copy of Windows being used means one less user is using an alternate platform such as Linux or OS X.


Maybe if you exclude people who don't dual boot, and those that own more than one computer with another operating system on it.
"

The original poster was talking about "the 3rd world". Now it's true that "we" in da west ship lots of our used crap to for instance countries in Africa (our generous gifts, right?) but billions of people have zero or if they're lucky, one computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by dreamlax on Sat 23rd May 2009 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

The person I replied to explicitly said "every single pirated copy".

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by h3rman on Sat 23rd May 2009 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

You're right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The person I replied to explicitly said "every single pirated copy".


That's because every single pirated copy does help to prop up Microsoft. Dual-boot or not, you are still using it and thus propping them up, yes? You are still not fully converted to an alternate platform and therefore have Windows around, right?
The reason is irrelevant. If you have a need for Windows at all and you pirate it, you are one less user who has converted fully over to an alternate platform and hense help to keep Microsoft in the top position.

Edited 2009-05-23 17:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by bousozoku on Sat 23rd May 2009 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Simply put: Because every single pirated copy of Windows being used means one less user is using an alternate platform such as Linux or OS X. Obviously, Microsoft would rather every copy of Windows be bought and paid for... but failing that, they'll settle with pirated copies being used, as it still helps to prop up their dominant position and vendor lock-in.


True, because they'd never consider something like excellence in software. It costs too much to do the right thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Yes, why have quality when ubiquity and lock-in does just as well or better, and at less overhead at that?
We have the dents in Microsoft's monopoly to thank for the recent improvements in Windows. The question is, will they continue to improve or will they continue to settle for "good enough" and resort to more underhanded business practices like those in the past?
The fact that they still offer starter at all should provide a hint of an answer to this, I think.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by Gone fishing on Sat 23rd May 2009 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Don't bother, Microsoft"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

As Bill Gates wrote: "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."?


This is quite clear its hard to explain why people should use Linux (the idea of buying doesn't even enter the frame) they just say why? when I can use a pirated Windows and a pirated photoshop etc. Try to buy a legal copy in Kampala - I don't think you could.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Don't bother, Microsoft
by BluenoseJake on Sat 23rd May 2009 16:29 UTC in reply to "Don't bother, Microsoft"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The rest of the world thanks you for the continued existence Windows Genuine Advantage and Windows Activation.

Why not use Linux or BSD? Do something legal instead of pirating? Especially after MS removes the stupid limits on Starter Edition? Seems to me you (reduz, not the entire third world) have lots of choices, but choose to steal your stuff instead.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Don't bother, Microsoft
by OSbunny on Sat 23rd May 2009 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't bother, Microsoft"
OSbunny Member since:
2009-05-23

One of the biggest reasons for software piracy is that MS does not bother to sell to people in poor countries. It just does not care for this market. Lots of multinationals operate in poor countries. Companies like nestle, Unilever,Intel etc. all successfully sell their products here by pricing them according to the local market.

Microsoft just does not consider the market relevant and hence it does not bother to price its software inline with our purchasing power. It also has not bothered to open sales and support centres here. This BTW is the sixth most populous country on the planet. No small market if you work at it.

Reply Score: 2

Hummmm
by Windows Sucks on Fri 22nd May 2009 23:54 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

They must have a feeling Netbooks are not going to keep selling like they are. Or something else is afoot.

I don't see how they can make money selling a full version of Windows 7 on netbooks at like $10 or $20 a copy. (And I hear the prices are of netbooks are going lower)

Also if they are selling a full version of netbooks I am sure OEMS are going to want a similar price on low end PC's.

If starter edition becomes the defacto choice on all low end PC's, laptops and netbooks MS is going to have some real issues.

I guess we will have to wait to see what is up their sleeves.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hummmm
by Lennie on Sat 23rd May 2009 13:18 UTC in reply to "Hummmm"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

And I hear the prices are of netbooks are going lower

Don't 'worry', their will be ARM based netbooks for even less, Microsoft's only response is Windows CE at this point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hummmm
by Windows Sucks on Sat 23rd May 2009 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Hummmm"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

CE against Android or full Linux. Who do you think will win?

Its like MS is being hit at all sides and has to do all things software and now electronics.

Reply Score: 2

Taskbar redesign
by John Blink on Fri 22nd May 2009 23:56 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Was so you could manager better the many windows that some people open.

Windows 7 Starter with 3 app limit would have been super dumb.

Reply Score: 2

Starter Edition good for Virtualisation.
by iwod on Sat 23rd May 2009 01:36 UTC
iwod
Member since:
2006-05-02

Personally i think Starter edition is good. Imagine you could get 98% of Windows Compatibility on Mac with a Virtual Windows 7 Starter Edition for only 10 - 20 Dollars.....

Reply Score: 1

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Personally i think Starter edition is good. Imagine you could get 98% of Windows Compatibility on Mac with a Virtual Windows 7 Starter Edition for only 10 - 20 Dollars.....


Good point I will certainly consider running Linux as the main OS with Windows 7 Starter Edition in VirtualBox for $10 so that users can open the odd Windows app. On the other hand a pirated XP professional....

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

They will probably add some limitations on virtualization like they did in Vista. If I remember correctly Vista Optima was/is the only Vista you are allowed to run in a VM.

Besides, you would most likely still have the 10.2" screen limitation in your VM. A "10.2" window on a 2560-by-1600-pixel 30" Apple Cinema HD display, it would even look very small on a more common 24" display. In this case I would think that people would eiter go for the full version or the totally free pirated version.

Other than that, I think that the real limitation of Windows 7, with respect to netbooks, is that it doesn't run on ARM. People that buy netbooks want them to be cheep, have long battery life. ARM will be much better than Intel in this respect.

Reply Score: 4

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

They will probably add some limitations on virtualization like they did in Vista. If I remember correctly Vista Optima was/is the only Vista you are allowed to run in a VM.

Besides, you would most likely still have the 10.2" screen limitation in your VM. A "10.2" window on a 2560-by-1600-pixel 30" Apple Cinema HD display, it would even look very small on a more common 24" display. In this case I would think that people would eiter go for the full version or the totally free pirated version.


I do not think that this chapter in an EULA is valid, ESPECIALLY if I tell the clerk who hands me the box what I want to use it for, and he not immediately tells me that this was not permitted.

Here in Austria we have a law, that gives you the right to assume things about products. For example, if you buy shoes, you can expect them to not get completely damaged the first time you wear them in rainy conditions. If someone wants to sell you shoes which will get damaged the first time in rainy conditions, he clearly has to say: You can buy these shoes, but they will get destroyed by rain.

Therefore, if I buy something, and later in the EULA (after buying) I have to accept some conditions which would disallow me to do the very things why I bought the product in the first place, that parts of the EULA are simply not valid. They would have to at least put the EULA on a sign next to the product boxes so I can make an informed buying decision. I am even more safe, if I take the now opened box, get it back to the store, tell him the reason why I cannot use this product, demand my money back, which is refused by the clerk due to a sign in their shop saying that they do not take back opened software boxes.

To enhance the fun, I could then write the whole story to Microsoft Austria, and ask them to take the product back (or make the shop take it back), and tell them that refusal of doing so is the allowance to use the product the way I see fit.

Heck, it would be worth 20,-€ to do this just for the fun of doing it.

Reply Score: 2

Pay the ransome or else...
by ruel24 on Sat 23rd May 2009 21:46 UTC
ruel24
Member since:
2006-03-21

What it boils down to is either you pay the Microsoft ransom/tax or they'll cripple your system to something you don't want... No thanks...

Reply Score: 2

Thanks to Linux
by sb56637 on Sun 24th May 2009 03:05 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

We can all thank GNU/Linux for this. It's getting to be quite a nice system on the desktop, (and the netbook) and it's even exercising positive peer pressure on Windows. MS would never have removed this limitation if there wasn't a better alternative already out there.

Reply Score: 5

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2859

Report: Microsoft readies new maximum specs for Windows 7 netbooks

Microsoft is readying a set of maximum specs for Windows 7 netbooks –or, as Microsoft prefers to call them, “small notebooks” — that will likely dictate which PCs will qualify for lower per-copy Windows 7 pricing.

The alleged Windows 7 netbook specs were published earlier this month on the TechARP technology enthusiast site.

Microsoft established a similar set of specs for XP and Vista netbooks, a category the company had been referring to as ultra-low-cost PCs (ULPCs). The ones it is developing for Windows 7 are designed for netbooks that have smaller screens and single-core 2 GHz CPUs, TechARP said.


http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=619&pgno=3#max_netboo...

Screen Size :: Not to exceed 10.2"
Memory :: 1 GB RAM
Storage :: 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SDD
CPU :: Single core processors that: do not exceed 2 GHz frequency; and have a CPU thermal design power that is less than or equal to 15 W, not including the graphics and chipset.


Meanwhile, ARM is about to release the ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A9_MPCore

Interesting.

Key features of the Cortex-A9 core are:

* Superscalar execution giving over 2.0 DMIPS/MHz.
* NEON SIMD instruction set extension performing up to 16 operations per instruction.
* High performance Floating Point Unit (double the performance of previous ARM FPUs).
* Thumb-2 instruction set encoding reduces the size of programs with little impact on performance.
* TrustZone security extensions.
* Jazelle support for Java execution.
* Program Trace Macrocell and CoreSight Design Kit for unobtrusive tracing of instruction execution.

ARM states that a single core (excluding caches) occupies less than 1.5 mm2 when designed in a TSMC 65 nanometer (nm) generic process, can be clocked at speeds over 1GHz and consumes less than 250mW per core.


More detail:
http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ARMCortex-A9_MPCore.html

Windows 7 will be available for netbooks only on more expensive, less powerful and shorter battery life machines than Ubuntu on ARM.

There is no reason for an ARM netbook maker to feel in any way constrained by Microsoft's attempts to control the market.

Edited 2009-05-24 08:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Those maximum specs are not defining the netbook market or limiting available hardware. They are the maximum specs for hardware upon which an OEM can ship Starter/Basic Editions.

Systems with higher specs must ship with Home Premium or above.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Those maximum specs are not defining the netbook market or limiting available hardware. They are the maximum specs for hardware upon which an OEM can ship Starter/Basic Editions. Systems with higher specs must ship with Home Premium or above.


How about shipping them with Linux instead?

That would be a far better deal for the purchasers of such systems, since it avoids the Windows tax entirely, and keeps the price point for netbook class machines (10 inch screen) low.

If Microsoft try to do deals with OEMs along the lines that "you can only get a good price from us for Windows 7 if you refuse to offer Linux" ... hasn't Intel just received a record massive fine from the EU for doing exactly that type of deal?

Reply Score: 2

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

"Those maximum specs are not defining the netbook market or limiting available hardware. They are the maximum specs for hardware upon which an OEM can ship Starter/Basic Editions. Systems with higher specs must ship with Home Premium or above.
How about shipping them with Linux instead? That would be a far better deal for the purchasers of such systems, since it avoids the Windows tax entirely, and keeps the price point for netbook class machines (10 inch screen) low. If Microsoft try to do deals with OEMs along the lines that "you can only get a good price from us for Windows 7 if you refuse to offer Linux" ... hasn't Intel just received a record massive fine from the EU for doing exactly that type of deal? "

The maximum spec requirements have nothing to do with whether the OEM offers Linux, nor is it giving anyone pricing incentives based on exclusivity. It's to keep the distribution of Starter/Basic limited to systems for which those SKUs are targeted (low-power, basic systems). Without the spec maximums in place, some OEMs (predictably) might try selling Basic/Starter with configurations like 4-core, 8GB, just to get higher profit margins due to the lower license costs of those SKUs while screwing their customers because they can't fully take advantage of such a system using Starter/Basic.

This is purely about Windows licensing requirements. The OEM can sell Linux or some other OS with whatever hardware configuration they please. Likewise, they may sell their Windows systems with Home Premium or higher across the board instead of using Starter/Basic).

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The maximum spec requirements have nothing to do with whether the OEM offers Linux, nor is it giving anyone pricing incentives based on exclusivity.


This is exactly what one would expect a Microsoft apologist to claim.

Nevertheless, this actually is all about Microsoft being able to offer a near-zero-cost-to-OEM version of Windows 7 to OEMs for the low end netbook market without causing an undercutting of Windows 7 price on more capable hardware. Microsoft can only do this if they differentiate the netbook market, where there is actual competition going on.

That is to say, Microsoft must constrain the performance of the machine on which they will allow the OEM to offer a next-to-zero price version of Windows 7. There must be a penalty to the user who gets such a deal ... otherwise there is no incentive for said users to upgrade to a more capable machine with a full-price version of Windows 7.

{PS: If a netbook is powerfull enough, one does not need a desktop. Just plug in a larger screen, and perhaps an external USB keyboard and mouse, and maybe an optical drive, when the netbook is used at the desk.}

So there are two weak points in Microsoft's apparent strategy:

(1) It is obvious that there is no point at all for an ARM-based netbook to feel constrained to offer a limited performance machine in the netbook form factor and price category, and

(2) There is no point in Microsoft giving out next-to-zero-cost versions of Windows 7 unless Microsoft get a no-Linux exclusive deal out of it ... which makes it an anti-trust issue if it can be shown that that is indeed the deal.

So, given the existence of ARM (Cortex A9 MPcore) netbooks, there will be more powerful machines, with better battery life, with more application software pre-installed at the same price point ... even if Microsoft do offer Windows 7 at zero cost to OEMs on constrained hardware.

The only way Microsoft can get a win here is to prevent the retail sale of Linux+ARM+Ubuntu netbooks.

That would be business inteference with the market. That is anti-trust. Massive fine (at least in the EU).

Edited 2009-05-25 01:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm, so clarifying Windows OEM licensing requirements makes me an MS appologist?

What does denying that some people actually willingly choose to use/ship Windows (or something other than Linux) make you?

If anything, the max spec requirements benefit Linux (and other OSes) because it raises the minimum price of Windows systems that go beyond the max specs, such as the ARM systems you mentioned (not that standard Windows runs on those yet anyway), by restricting OEMs from shipping the lower priced Windows SKUs on those systems.

The point of the lower-cost SKUs is to provide Windows at a competitive price-point on low-cost machines. This isn't even a new concept. They've just expanded the available market for Starter (and correspondingly shrunk the one for Basic -- the SKUs have basically traded places).

Microsoft doesn't need exclusivity to be competitive against Linux. Linux, like any OS, has enough issues such that many will choose to use an alternative.

I don't expect many OEMs will ship Starter on many PCs in major markets anyway (Basic is only provided to OEMs for deployment in emerging markets, as Starter was previously) as even currently available netbooks (and UMPCs) are capable of running the higher SKUs with Glass, and those are likely to sell better and provide a better user experience. I also expect more netbooks to provide touch and tablet features in the 7 timeframe, which also require at least Home Premium.

In major markets, I'd characterize Starter as the "I don't care" SKU (i.e., "I just need a Windows license" [if it's available to users via OEM channels such as Newegg/Amazon, etc.], people will buy it when they don't care about/need/care to pay for anything more, whether for them or someone's system they're working on/building -- otherwise it's an OEM offering a system [and a user buying such a system -- "I don't care about extras, I just need web, Office, email, etc."] with specs so basic that it wouldn't benefit from anything more, or they're meeting a certain price and/or profit point). Most OEMs and users are going to want systems that are differentiated by something other than only cost. Those systems, if running Windows, are going to be running higher SKUs (Premium SKUs already represent the majority of OEM Windows shipments).

Edited 2009-05-25 02:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cjmcrorie058 Member since:
2009-05-25

The point is that MS does not want any OS running on anything that does not support there api. Things like open office and server 2003 or 2007 where the majority of their profit is delivered from take advantage of windows api's embedded in xp vista etc... Having software that will run no questions asked on 80% of desktops and laptops without having to use a web app. or conform to POST is how they MS makes there cash. Being the lost leader only works if you are actual willing to lose money. IBM etc.. are willing to provide finishing work for things like openoffice and other free open source software. Hardware manufacture realize that software company can add feature at a lower prices. So to rise the value of netbooks is to simply lower the cost of software. MS is facing an environment where their refuse to separate there api form there 800 pound GUI will kill them. The iphone is example of MS biggest fear not having having directed access to the api for the majority of OS's running on most computers. Run XP until windows 7 works will.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The iphone is example of MS biggest fear not having having directed access to the api for the majority of OS's running on most computers.


This depends purely on what you mean by "computers".

If you had said simply "CPUs" instead ... then the majority don't run Microsoft software.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hmm, so clarifying Windows OEM licensing requirements makes me an MS appologist?


If the hat fits, wear it.

What does denying that some people actually willingly choose to use/ship Windows (or something other than Linux) make you?


What does inventing a stance that I have never taken make you?

If anything, the max spec requirements benefit Linux (and other OSes) because it raises the minimum price of Windows systems that go beyond the max specs,


Point of clarity ... I don't care about a benefit for Linux, I care about a benefit for users. People. Consumers. The public.

PS: for the most part, this benefit involves reductions in cost and increases in functionality, security and control over their own systems, rather than anything enabling an increased price for higher-power-than-they-need systems.

such as the ARM systems you mentioned (not that standard Windows runs on those yet anyway), by restricting OEMs from shipping the lower priced Windows SKUs on those systems.


ARM systems will never be binary compatible with Windows. Ergo, the vast bulk of binary-only Windows application executables are useless to an ARM platform. Ergo, Windows on ARM has zero established software library, even if Microsoft did port Windows 7 to ARM. Just running Windows by itself doesn't amount to squat ... you get WMP, IE, Calc, Notepad, Wordpad and Paint.

The point of the lower-cost SKUs is to provide Windows at a competitive price-point on low-cost machines. This isn't even a new concept.


Even if Windows 7 cost nothing, and hence (by itself) is at a competitive price-point (as far as the OEM is concerned), it still isn't price competitive with Linux. From a user's perspective. I can go on for ages and ages about comparable after-purchase software costs for Windows versus Linux if you would like, but I am assuming you will be sensible and just admit this point.

They've just expanded the available market for Starter (and correspondingly shrunk the one for Basic -- the SKUs have basically traded places). Microsoft doesn't need exclusivity to be competitive against Linux. Linux, like any OS, has enough issues such that many will choose to use an alternative. I don't expect many OEMs will ship Starter on many PCs in major markets anyway (Basic is only provided to OEMs for deployment in emerging markets, as Starter was previously) as even currently available netbooks (and UMPCs) are capable of running the higher SKUs with Glass, and those are likely to sell better and provide a better user experience. I also expect more netbooks to provide touch and tablet features in the 7 timeframe, which also require at least Home Premium. In major markets, I'd characterize Starter as the "I don't care" SKU (i.e., "I just need a Windows license" [if it's available to users via OEM channels such as Newegg/Amazon, etc.], people will buy it when they don't care about/need/care to pay for anything more, whether for them or someone's system they're working on/building -- otherwise it's an OEM offering a system [and a user buying such a system -- "I don't care about extras, I just need web, Office, email, etc."] with specs so basic that it wouldn't benefit from anything more, or they're meeting a certain price and/or profit point). Most OEMs and users are going to want systems that are differentiated by something other than only cost. Those systems, if running Windows, are going to be running higher SKUs (Premium SKUs already represent the majority of OEM Windows shipments).


I don't understand your point. If you just want a bare-bones system, you still need to purchase extra software (or at least download it) for a Windows system, and if you are going to put that system on the net, you are going to need extra security products.

Even if Microsoft subsidises Windows 7 on netbooks, Linux is still vastly the better value (for people, for users) in the scenario you describe above. In the scenario you describe above, the people don't require Microsoft Office anyway, they would require anti-malware for Windows only, they would still need to supply at least the time if not the cost for additional software, whereas a Linux netbook would come with all software ready to go.

In every scenario, people are better off with a Linux system. Easily. Even if Microsoft subsidises the bare OS to be installed on their hardware. No contest, really.

Edited 2009-05-25 04:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

ARM systems will never be binary compatible with Windows. Ergo, the vast bulk of binary-only Windows application executables are useless to an ARM platform. Ergo, Windows on ARM has zero established software library, even if Microsoft did port Windows 7 to ARM. Just running Windows by itself doesn't amount to squat ... you get WMP, IE, Calc, Notepad, Wordpad and Paint.


You also get managed code applications with no porting necessary, and open source applications via a recompile. Wordpad in Windows 7 handles .docx, updates could be offered for existing apps to provide ARM support for existing customers or, in the case of Office, 2010 provides a web interface. There doesn't need to be 100% compatibility with all existing Windows applications to satisfy the needs of most users in that market. The choice would be to go with an x86/x86-64 platform for 100% Windows compatibility, or go with ARM Windows or Linux for similarly limited compatibility. Overall compatibility on ARM will only not be an issue if you're already a Linux user. If you're a Windows user, you face a similar situation whether you choose ARM Windows, Linux, Android, etc.

Even if Windows 7 cost nothing, and hence (by itself) is at a competitive price-point (as far as the OEM is concerned), it still isn't price competitive with Linux. From a user's perspective. I can go on for ages and ages about comparable after-purchase software costs for Windows versus Linux if you would like, but I am assuming you will be sensible and just admit this point.


If you don't care about the apps (i.e., you would use OpenOffice instead of MS Office, etc.), the after-purchase costs for software for a Windows machine is comparable to Linux.

I don't understand your point. If you just want a bare-bones system, you still need to purchase extra software (or at least download it) for a Windows system, and if you are going to put that system on the net, you are going to need extra security products. Even if Microsoft subsidises Windows 7 on netbooks, Linux is still vastly the better value (for people, for users) in the scenario you describe above. In the scenario you describe above, the people don't require Microsoft Office anyway, they would require anti-malware for Windows only, they would still need to supply at least the time if not the cost for additional software, whereas a Linux netbook would come with all software ready to go. In every scenario, people are better off with a Linux system. Easily. Even if Microsoft subsidises the bare OS to be installed on their hardware. No contest, really.


The laptop I'm typing this on (running Windows 7 RC x64, previously Vista x64) has no installed AV software. The only anti-malware software I'm running ships with the OS or is part of Messenger or IE. Since Vista, the default configuration of Windows is comparable to most Linux distributions in terms of security. If I want to install an AV solution on this computer (or a netbook as is being discussed here), there are a number of free (some open source) AV solutions I may install. Microsoft will even have one available around the time of Windows 7's release. I normally use Avast! Home Edition, however, viruses have never posed a problem for me on my systems, and I've not paid for a security suite for several years. If I were running the mythical ARM Windows 7, most viruses wouldn't even be compatible with the architecture.

Edited 2009-05-25 20:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

gdltek1
Member since:
2009-05-04

I'll admit it, I'm a Linux fan, have been for years and probably will continue to be until something better comes along (which I don't see happening anytime in the near future).

I'll own that I've had my ups and down with various distros of Linux. However of all the issues I've had over the years with it, none of them were things I couldn't live with. Sometimes I have to do a little legwork to find a solution, but the point is 9/10 times I can find and implement a solution.

Linux gives me the freedom that I never had in the Windows world. It seems all I see coming from Redmond offerings are new and improved bloatware that chew up resources and find new ways to restrict the user in various ways. Can't run on more than X number of computers, can't use for this or that, can't play this kind of media, have to register & activate, can't open more than X number of connections at a time, have to have at least blah resources to run foo. Et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

This is not even to mention all the bugs, flaws, exploits, malware and other baddies that are associated with that platform.

The way I see it, Windows is the "can't do" Operating System. I always thought that the user told the software what to do, not the other way around. With Linux, I'm in complete control of my system, not vice versa.

I can't believe that people actually pay good money only to be held hostage by their own computers.

Reply Score: 0

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

The way I see it, Windows is the "can't do" Operating System. I always thought that the user told the software what to do, not the other way around. With Linux, I'm in complete control of my system, not vice versa.


While I generally agree with you, I think people grossly overestimate the idea of "being in control". With Linux the end user is increasingly at the mercy of distributions, vendors and big commercial entities. In a way this applies to individual developers and smaller companies too.

Even if the code is open or "free", how many of us have knowledge, time and resources to patch something like the kernel, Firefox or OpenOffice? I can hack most smaller projects and continue to do so, but sometimes it frustrates me that the increasing complexity is starting to cost me that freedom.

Reply Score: 1

gdltek1 Member since:
2009-05-04

[q]The way I see it, Windows is the "can't do" Operating System. I always thought that the user told the software what to do, not the other way around. With Linux, I'm in complete control of my system, not vice versa.


While I generally agree with you, I think people grossly overestimate the idea of "being in control". With Linux the end user is increasingly at the mercy of distributions, vendors and big commercial entities. In a way this applies to individual developers and smaller companies too.



You state this as if it were a bad thing. Linux is the everything to everyone platform. From everyday casual users to high end computing clusters, Linux is there and ready.

Even if the code is open or "free", how many of us have knowledge, time and resources to patch something like the kernel, Firefox or OpenOffice? I can hack most smaller projects and continue to do so, but sometimes it frustrates me that the increasing complexity is starting to cost me that freedom.


How often have you recompiled a kernel for Windows to include all the modules and optimizations specifically for your hardware? Let me answer for you, you haven't, never have and never will. It's not an option, period. With Linux it is if you want to.

Personally, I haven't compiled a custom kernel in over 5 years because I haven't needed or wanted to, but I could if I did, that's the point - that's the freedom.

Freedom isn't as much about personal ability as it is about opportunity. With Linux, the opportunity is there even in the absence of ability. If you discover a bug in Windows that you have the ability to fix, can you? No, because you do not have the opportunity to do so. With Linux, you do.

Plus this only touches on the one point of the meaning of "free". I have the equivelant of thousands of dollars worth of software on my system that can do everything from text editing to development environments.

Reply Score: 2

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

How often have you recompiled a kernel for Windows to include all the modules and optimizations specifically for your hardware? Let me answer for you, you haven't, never have and never will. It's not an option, period. With Linux it is if you want to.


Maybe I wrote that badly, but I wasn't actually talking about compiling anything.

Freedom isn't as much about personal ability as it is about opportunity. With Linux, the opportunity is there even in the absence of ability. If you discover a bug in Windows that you have the ability to fix, can you? No, because you do not have the opportunity to do so. With Linux, you do.


That is all fine and dandy, but how true is it in practice? That was my question. That increasingly there is no practical difference in discovering bugs in Windows or in Linux or in OS X; the best end-users can do is report them and hope for the best.

I brought the Firefox example; there are plenty of bugs I've seen, but there is not much I can do to get those fixed. Most certainly I will not spend several months studying a huge -- and likely ugly ;-) -- codebase in order to fix a bug or two.

That is the universal sad state of software.

Plus this only touches on the one point of the meaning of "free". I have the equivelant of thousands of dollars worth of software on my system that can do everything from text editing to development environments.


No disagreement here.

Reply Score: 1

EvilPixieMan Member since:
2009-01-27

"Freedom isn't as much about personal ability as it is about opportunity. With Linux, the opportunity is there even in the absence of ability. If you discover a bug in Windows that you have the ability to fix, can you? No, because you do not have the opportunity to do so. With Linux, you do.


That is all fine and dandy, but how true is it in practice? That was my question.
"

Freedom doesn't always need to be exercised to be enjoyed. I don't need to quit my job and run off on a big adventure to know that I am free to do that (or most other things) if I chose to do so. Fact is, I may just spend my weekdays at work, weekends out and about, and take moderate annual leave. Mostly pretty mundane, and would be perfectly acceptable in many countries around the world where personal freedom is considered limited. But the very fact that I know that at any time I could (if I so desired) strive to buy another house, or take the big adventure I mentioned above - that is what freedom is about. Its not only doing anything and everything, its also simply knowing you can if you want/need to, even in the absence of needing to now.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Linux gives me the freedom that I never had in the Windows world. It seems all I see coming from Redmond offerings are new and improved bloatware that chew up resources and find new ways to restrict the user in various ways. Can't run on more than X number of computers, can't use for this or that, can't play this kind of media, have to register & activate, can't open more than X number of connections at a time, have to have at least blah resources to run foo. Et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This is not even to mention all the bugs, flaws, exploits, malware and other baddies that are associated with that platform. The way I see it, Windows is the "can't do" Operating System. I always thought that the user told the software what to do, not the other way around. With Linux, I'm in complete control of my system, not vice versa. I can't believe that people actually pay good money only to be held hostage by their own computers.


Here is another example (from my own country) of end users frustrations with Windows and not being in control of their own computing infrastructure costs, even though they had already paid for Windows:

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/9F52A5E565BF195DCC2575C000...

Why anyone (as an end user) would stick with Windows only to get shafted (or even worse, audited for license compliance) is beyond me.

There is an alternative, and even better ... the alternative is written with the user's best interests in mind. Users will still be able to run their IT systems, but will no longer get shafted. Thankfully, many people worldwide are beginning to see that this is so.

I mean to say, get this:

The Microsoft spokesperson said the licence conditions are designed to assist smaller standalone facilities: "as there are organisations in this sector that form part of larger affiliates and, in many respects, act in a similar manner to commercial organisations, Charity Open has been designed to provide targeted assistance to smaller, standalone aged care facilities and hospices that have access to fewer resources. This is to underpin the sustainability of the program for a wider cross-section of the Australian charity sector."


Clue for Microsoft spokesperson ... the charities IT is perfectly sustainable if they run Linux.

Another cluebat for Microsoft spokesperson ... charging organised charities full commercial rates is hardly helping anyone, and it especially won't help Microsoft.

Edited 2009-05-26 00:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

BTW: Source?
by lemur2 on Tue 26th May 2009 07:08 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200905232313521...

The story "Microsoft to remove 3 app limit from Windows 7 Starter" seems to be just a rumour so far. All the web sites that are reporting on it simply reference Thurrott's two sentence post as the source. Thurrott doesn't go into any details and doesn't state what his source is. It may be true, but it remains to be seen.


Interesting.

"Just a rumour" speculating something positive about Windows 7 gets front page billing on OSNews as if it is true, yet there is no mention at all of the actually tested, verifiable, actually important interoperability EPIC FAILURE of MS Office 2007 SP2.

http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_suppo...

http://blogs.infosupport.com/blogs/porint/archive/2009/05/06/odf-su...

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html

OSNews: "Equitable dealing? Balanced reporting? Never heard of it, what do you mean?"

Reply Score: 2