Microsoft To Remove Windows 7 Starter Three App Limit
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.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 52 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gmj
Permalink for comment 365253
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2