PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7 Starter will run only 3 applications...



lovinglinux
April 25th, 2009, 12:44 AM
From http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/837/1051837/windows-hobbled-starter-edition

Microsoft is afraid of Linux and decided to lower the price of upcoming Windows 7 Starter edition. But it will run only 3 applications at the same time:

Let's see:

1 - Anti-Virus
2 - Anti-Spyware
3 - A decent Firewall
4 - e-mai....ooops....I want my money back

:lolflag:

I bet Microsoft isn't counting the hidden malware the users will get in the limitation of applications running, otherwise they won't be able to boot.

days_of_ruin
April 25th, 2009, 12:48 AM
From http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/837/1051837/windows-hobbled-starter-edition

Microsoft is afraid of Linux and decided to lower the price of upcoming Windows 7 Starter edition. But it will run only 3 applications at the same time:

Let's see:

1 - Anti-Virus
2 - Anti-Spyware
3 - A decent Firewall
4 - e-mai....ooops....I want my money back

:lolflag:

I bet Microsoft isn't counting the hidden malware the users will get in the limitation of applications running, otherwise they won't be able to boot.

Those types are NOT counted. Same with windows explorer.

ddrichardson
April 25th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Did they not do this already with XP in some territories? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Edit: Yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Editions_for_specific_markets

bakedbeans4life
April 25th, 2009, 12:55 AM
From http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/837/1051837/windows-hobbled-starter-edition

Microsoft is afraid of Linux and decided to lower the price of upcoming Windows 7 Starter edition. But it will run only 3 applications at the same time:

Let's see:

1 - Anti-Virus
2 - Anti-Spyware
3 - A decent Firewall
4 - e-mai....ooops....I want my money back

:lolflag:

I bet Microsoft isn't counting the hidden malware the users will get in the limitation of applications running, otherwise they won't be able to boot.

No, No, No... Microsoft did this for your benefit.

I will put my fingers in my ears then whistle Dixie than you disregard ANYTHING Microsoft.

happysmileman
April 25th, 2009, 01:00 AM
Those applications aren't counted...

But:
1. Web Browser
2. Instant Messaging client.
3. Media player

And you're done, since generally anyone would have all 3 of these constantly open, I can imagine how frustrating it would be to use.

Obviously the starter edition is only intended for people in poorer countries I'd assume, but I find it shocking that the company would PURPOSELY put extra effort into making their operating system less useful, for any reason.

ddrichardson
April 25th, 2009, 01:06 AM
Those applications aren't counted...

But:
1. Web Browser
2. Instant Messaging client.
3. Media player
Is this quoted anywhere because given Microsoft's insistence on these being a part of the operating system (perhaps not IM so much) I'd have thought they wouldn't be counted.

happysmileman
April 25th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Is this quoted anywhere because given Microsoft's insistence on these being a part of the operating system (perhaps not IM so much) I'd have thought they wouldn't be counted.

Maybe not, but I was thinking Firefox would count even if IE didn't since it definitely isn't "part of the operating system", and quite a lot of people would use 3rd party media players.

And of course the only IM client included with Windows is for the MSN network, so any Yahoo or AOL users would need to use third party ones.

lovinglinux
April 25th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Obviously the starter edition is only intended for people in poorer countries I'd assume...

I guess yes. The price can make a big difference in countries like mine, specially because Vista Ultimate was sold here for almost $1000. At least the government has been doing it's job, giving some incentives for manufacturing cheap computers and promoting FOSS.

This makes me remember that a friend of mine was working for charity on a very poor place ("favela"), teaching children and teenagers to use the computer. Guess which OS the teachers and the students used?

lzfy
April 25th, 2009, 01:20 AM
Thank you God for giving us Linux.

That's all I had to say : )

LightB
April 25th, 2009, 01:21 AM
LOL

That's all.

Well ok, you want more: MS is like the Republican party, swing harder to what people are rejecting. That'll learn the competition.

Namtabmai
April 25th, 2009, 01:30 AM
I'm not a fan of Windows, but am I really the only person that doesn't see a problem with this.

Microsoft charge for their products this isn't going to change, so they produce several different versions priced differently for different demographics.

Think about all those people out there that aren't computer literate but still use computers. They browse the web, check their email and not much else. Why should they have to pay the same amount for Windows as someone who is a power user?

Of course they could install Linux, but generally these people don't care. They just want to browse the web without having to learn or even think about anything new, so let them buy a cheap copy of Windows.

It's better than them running a pirated version of Windows that their friend "who knows computers" installed for them.

Delever
April 25th, 2009, 01:33 AM
Wow, good news!

lovinglinux
April 25th, 2009, 01:40 AM
I'm not a fan of Windows, but am I really the only person that doesn't see a problem with this.

Microsoft charge for their products this isn't going to change, so they produce several different versions priced differently for different demographics.

Think about all those people out there that aren't computer literate but still use computers. They browse the web, check their email and not much else. Why should they have to pay the same amount for Windows as someone who is a power user?

Of course they could install Linux, but generally these people don't care. They just want to browse the web without having to learn or even think about anything new, so let them buy a cheap copy of Windows.

It's better than them running a pirated version of Windows that their friend "who knows computers" installed for them.

Good point.

stmiller
April 25th, 2009, 01:40 AM
I think the 27 versions of windows are stupid. Why not give everyone the 'ultimate' version?

This was a mistake in vista, and they are just doing it again it looks like. The vista 'starter' version was/is such a joke- it should have never been made.

oh microsoft...

Cenotaph
April 25th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Microsoft moves around various areas of business, i think it makes sense to have different versions. I think having an ultimate is probably what doesnt make sense actually. Its use is just making those guys that want to "always have it all" to pay a lot for something they don't really need...

They do have too many versions, imo, though. Same goes for Office, Visual Studio, well pretty much everything...

Namtabmai
April 25th, 2009, 01:45 AM
I think the 27 versions of windows are stupid. Why not give everyone the 'ultimate' version?

Because that would be an incredible bad business decision?

When 90% of your market doesn't use 90% of your software features, you are missing out on marketing. Tiered pricing is a sound business decision, why do you think that mobile phone operators don't just give everyone the same flat rate?

happysmileman
April 25th, 2009, 02:05 AM
Microsoft charge for their products this isn't going to change, so they produce several different versions priced differently for different demographics.

Think about all those people out there that aren't computer literate but still use computers. They browse the web, check their email and not much else. Why should they have to pay the same amount for Windows as someone who is a power user?

They shouldn't, the problem I see is that it's a matter of them intentionally crippling their software.

They make Windows 7, and it works fine (for certain values of "fine" from what i've heard :P), then they get people to actively work on making it worse and limited so they can spin out another version.

I'd like to know who decided that purposely putting flaws in the software, at extra cost, was a good thing.

SomeGuyDude
April 25th, 2009, 02:17 AM
I love that people are throwing a hissy fit about this like it's going to be the only version available. See the above post talking about making "it" worse.

MS could release a version that didn't actually run ANY applications, it wouldn't make a difference as long as people have the option to buy other ones.

It'd be like if Ubuntu made an AwesomeWM version and people got all made because "tiling window managers are too hard for most users!!!" So what? You don't get that version then. Gah.

LightB
April 25th, 2009, 02:21 AM
Some people have very fitting avatars. Not naming names, not naming names!

happysmileman
April 25th, 2009, 02:27 AM
I love that people are throwing a hissy fit about this like it's going to be the only version available. See the above post talking about making "it" worse.

I never implied it would be the only version, I did specifically say it was obviously just aimed at poorer countries.
My point was that they're spending money to make a worse-than-basic version by just limiting the functions of the basic version, when they could be spending the same money to actually improve the OS.

Totalchaos02
April 25th, 2009, 02:55 AM
I think the 27 versions of windows are stupid. Why not give everyone the 'ultimate' version?

This was a mistake in vista, and they are just doing it again it looks like. The vista 'starter' version was/is such a joke- it should have never been made.

oh microsoft...

I think you are looking at Vista in reverse of how Microsoft intends. The cheapest version isn't the default version of Vista/7, but the "Ultimate" version is the standard version. But when most of your user base doesn't need/want most of the functionality it only makes sense to give them what they want at a discount. Its no different from offering Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. except that Windows is a paid service.

wildman4god
April 25th, 2009, 04:01 AM
I can imagine students being one of those "average" computer users who need more than 3 apps open at a time. However this is what Microsoft wants, they want people to get frustrated with it and cough up the extra $150.00 for home premium, but there is an interesting point, if you upgrade you don't need to install anything new just punch in a new license number and boom instant home premium. I can imagine that some enterprising young lad will figure out how to unlock it without the code and do this for people.

As far as getting people to use Linux, be patient most people who aren't tech savvy just don't care what OS they use as long as it works, they just prefer windows because its familiar to them. I have people asking me to help them at least try ubuntu all the time, and if you want to know my secret, just be their friendly neighborhood tech guy, brush up on your customer service skills and get to know them, after awhile they will find out that you use ubuntu and they may get curious. And if they ask, be gental about the transition, use the wubi install or a virtual machine so they can get a taste and learn it when they have time, let them be able to quickly switch back to windows if they need to get work done, eventually they mat grow to like ubuntu and move to the next step if a full dual-boot and then mabey full time ubuntu. Just remeber it will take time, people have heard of nothing but windows since it came out and even now they don't know how to use windows that well still, so it will take time for linux to make head way in the desktop area, but it will happen just a little more slowly than we would like.

SomeGuyDude
April 25th, 2009, 04:10 AM
I heavily... heavily doubt MS will be stupid enough to try and "mass produce" the Starter version of Windows 7 to the public at large. It's not like that'll be the default one on Dell and HP's web pages. I'm also even more willing to bet that it'll be widely-available as an upgrade package as opposed to the standard home one. This is clearly intended to be an option for the very, very price-limiting.

MS is a business, period. Any old fool could anticipate what would happen if every Best Buy and Wal-Mart had "STARTER EDITION ONLY $99!!!" on their shelves and millions of computer users bought it, then went home and watched as they couldn't open more than three apps. It'd be the worst backlash the company ever had.

Rokurosv
April 25th, 2009, 04:11 AM
I think that the starter edition is aimed at netbooks, I mean they can't put XP forever on them. This way they still provide an 'up to date' product and still keep the prices somewhat low. I beleive that's one of the main reasons they're doing this.

I really don't mind cause if I ever get a netbook it'll probably run Linux :D.

SomeGuyDude
April 25th, 2009, 04:15 AM
There's a good question: how many other apps does anyone run on a netbook beyond the "windows suite" (IE/Outlook/WMP)? Maybe AIM and MS Paint?

Rokurosv
April 25th, 2009, 04:18 AM
There's a good question: how many other apps does anyone run on a netbook beyond the "windows suite" (IE/Outlook/WMP)? Maybe AIM and MS Paint?

Hehehe a friend of mine runs Visual Studio, Firefox, Miranda, Foobar2000 and uTorrent at the same time, most of the time, on his Aspire One. I think he will not be using the Starter Edition

pbpersson
April 25th, 2009, 04:21 AM
I hate crippleware, I really do

However, in poor countries where they have never even seen a computer.....

I remember in the dark ages when we used to run Windows 3.1 on top of DOS....in theory you could run more than one application, but whenever I would try DOS would hang up and I had to reboot.

This is sort of similar but with a nicer GUI :)

SomeGuyDude
April 25th, 2009, 04:34 AM
Hehehe a friend of mine runs Visual Studio, Firefox, Miranda, Foobar2000 and uTorrent at the same time, most of the time, on his Aspire One. I think he will not be using the Starter Edition

LOL, he's probably also not the kind of person who would have to save the couple of bucks SE would save him.

This is SERIOUSLY intended to be a version to load on low low low low end machines that can barely run three applications ANYWAY. It's not like it's gonna be on some mid-range PC with 2gb of memory or something.

wildman4god
April 25th, 2009, 04:53 AM
LOL, he's probably also not the kind of person who would have to save the couple of bucks SE would save him.

This is SERIOUSLY intended to be a version to load on low low low low end machines that can barely run three applications ANYWAY. It's not like it's gonna be on some mid-range PC with 2gb of memory or something.

Ubuntu on a netbook can run a lot more than 3 apps, I don't have a netbook, but I have a 7 year old laptop with similar specs as a netbook and I can have every open office application, banshee media player playing a video, rythmbox playing a last.fm stream, three or four gnome games, two firefox windows with 5 tabs open each, and pidgin open and my laptop doesn't even bat an eye. also every version of windows 7 is supposed to work on netbooks starter is their for manufactures to have a cheap os to put on the netbook to keep it's price down but microsoft wants people to pay 150 to 200 dollars for an upgrade.

zmjjmz
April 25th, 2009, 05:00 AM
LOL, he's probably also not the kind of person who would have to save the couple of bucks SE would save him.

This is SERIOUSLY intended to be a version to load on low low low low end machines that can barely run three applications ANYWAY. It's not like it's gonna be on some mid-range PC with 2gb of memory or something.

My Pentium I can run more than three apps, easily. The implication that a computer with the power of today's atom netbooks can't run more than three applications at a time is wholly untrue.

EDIT: In fact, my netbook wants an apology.

Rokurosv
April 25th, 2009, 05:11 AM
EDIT: In fact, my netbook wants an apology.

LOL

I agree, saying that gimping an OS because the hardware can't handle it is not a valid argument right now. I mean, I've seen the betas of 7 run on an Aspire and a NC-10 and they we're doing a lot more than just browsing around, and of course more than 3 apps were open.

Giant Speck
April 25th, 2009, 05:53 AM
If you, on average, run more than three GUI-based applications at a time, then Windows 7 Starter Edition is obviously not for you. Make sure you know exactly what you are getting before you buy it.

Windows 7 Starter Edition is not designed for every user. If it was, then it wouldn't be a starter version, would it? It's specifically designed for computers with lower amounts of RAM, amounts of RAM that other versions couldn't possibly run well on. It's designed for users that are beginners and only need to browse the internet, listen to music, or store and edit documents. It isn't designed for graphic designers. It isn't designed for movie directors. It isn't designed for gamers. It's designed for users that don't do much with their computer anyway.

Microsoft's tier-level version system allows users to choose the version that is right for their computer. If they have a very high-end computer, and they use your computer to create professional documents and media, then the higher-end versions, Business and Ultimate, are for them. If they have a basic home computer, and they play games, edit photos, and listen to music, then Home Premium is for them. If they have a basic low-end home computer with graphics capabilities that can not handle the Aero interface, and they don't play games, then Home Basic is for them.

Marketing Windows Vista Ultimate to every user would be a huge business mistake, because the minimum hardware specifications would require many users to have to upgrade their hardware or even completely replace their computers, which would be even more costly. In addition, Windows Vista Ultimate is overkill for users who only browse the internet.

Buy the right version for your needs. If the fact that just paying for an operating system is a problem for you, use no-cost operating systems like GNU/Linux, BSD, and OpenSolaris.

SomeGuyDude
April 25th, 2009, 06:02 AM
My Pentium I can run more than three apps, easily. The implication that a computer with the power of today's atom netbooks can't run more than three applications at a time is wholly untrue.

EDIT: In fact, my netbook wants an apology.

Uh... I didn't say anything remotely like that. But I'm glad you decided to get your knickers in a twist anyway. Feel better now?

3rdalbum
April 25th, 2009, 06:08 AM
I wish Windows 7 Starter Edition would be the default on as many computers as possible in the Western world. We'd have an influx of people wanting to install Linux.

Giant Speck
April 25th, 2009, 06:13 AM
I wish Windows 7 Starter Edition would be the default on as many computers as possible in the Western world. We'd have an influx of people wanting to install Linux.

If they knew Linux even existed. They'd probably switch to Mac before they'd ever find out about Linux.

lisati
April 25th, 2009, 06:16 AM
If they knew Linux even existed. They'd probably switch to Mac before they'd ever find out about Linux.

I've even had a long-time Windows user say to me, "what's windows?"........

Firestem4
April 25th, 2009, 06:26 AM
Some people may be interested in this article. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/04/i-agree-windows-7-starter-is-a-small-gamble-for-microsoft.ars

I hope not to repeat what many others might have previously said (there are a few other threads like this). But the "reasoning" behind the 3 app limit (according to a Microsoft survey) is that most Windows users have no more than 3 applications open at a time. And there will be a significant list of white-listed programs that will not count towards the cap. (Anti-virus, internet explorer, firewalls,etc) I am sure. As well I am sure you have to pay for your product to get onto that list.

Secondly, and the real reason; Microsoft will include this for "cheap" on a lower end system. And nearly anyone who uses it will be annoyed as hell by the 3 limit cap and upgrade to the obscenely more expensive Windows 7 Premium, or Ultimate.

The saddest part about this though..Is they think it will perform well in the Netbook market.

FLMKane
April 25th, 2009, 07:23 AM
I come from Bangldesh. I can tell you that NO ONE EXCEPT AN IDIOT would use Windows 7 starter over here. They would use a pirated version of the higher end system...or use pirated XP discs

As for that crap OS doing well in the netbook market, has it been ported to ARM yet? No? Then what will Nokia use on their upcoming netbooks? I wonder...

ddrichardson
April 25th, 2009, 10:48 AM
I think the 27 versions of windows are stupid. Why not give everyone the 'ultimate' version?

This was a mistake in vista, and they are just doing it again it looks like. The vista 'starter' version was/is such a joke- it should have never been made.

oh microsoft...
Because paying the codec royalty fees so a large part of your user base (business users) are running on systems with no DVD facility is to business decisions what Nick Leeson is to sound financial planning.

ddrichardson
April 25th, 2009, 10:50 AM
If they knew Linux even existed. They'd probably switch to Mac before they'd ever find out about Linux.
Thats unlikely given that the prime motivator in this case is money spent and what it gives you - Apple is perceived as expensive.

ddrichardson
April 25th, 2009, 10:56 AM
I hate crippleware, I really do

However, in poor countries where they have never even seen a computer.....

I remember in the dark ages when we used to run Windows 3.1 on top of DOS....in theory you could run more than one application, but whenever I would try DOS would hang up and I had to reboot.

This is sort of similar but with a nicer GUI :)
Thats a valid point because it wasn't the hardware causing the crashes it was 3.11 doing "co-operative" multitasking, where applications were supposed to control and play nice. In other words a Windows design decision.

A starter edition is a tacit acknowledgement of the system's inability to run on this hardware.