Slashdot Mirror
XP Starter Edition Examined
de la mettrie writes "C-Net reports that analysts do not recommend using Microsoft's new 'Windows XP Starter Edition', a low-cost XP version aimed at the Asian market (and previously covered on Slashdot). The report notes that numerous networking features are removed, and the Starter Edition allows only three applications to be run concurrently. According to Microsoft, this limitation 'helps [users] stay organized and reduces confusion.'"
I guess they are saving money by not filling as much of the CD :)
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Microsoft would do well to learn from IBM's mistakes (PCJr) as well as IBM's successes (FUD).
3 Apps? "That's just stupid", as Dib would say. Linux cannot fail to win a "desktop readiness" comparison with such an abysmal product! Hell, my 1990 Amiga would win such a comparison!
Am I missing something here, or is this some sort of elaborate joke?
Far from reducing confusion, I think this release will harm Microsoft's image in the far east. Considering just how crippled this version is, $39 or whatever it's being sold for is really far too much. Hooray, a tenth of the features for only half the price. This will clearly harden their image over there as being overpriced.
As for the three application limit being to simplify things for the users, what are they smoking? What makes them think that just because the users are first time customers, they've never used a computer before? Of course they have, with pirated copies of XP Pro, or Linux of course. This crippleware will fool nobody.
Still, at least we can be thankful that the guys at MS still haven't got a clue how to deal with the rise of Linux and friends. I'm frankly baffled at how they came up with this idea in the first place.
Personally, I'm all in favour of poison-pill Windows Update deliveries for unlicensed copies of Windows. I'm quite sure they've thought of that one, but quickly ruled it out because it'd end up harming their monopoly, and that's all they have to hold onto really.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
To see the forest through the trees.
This is not a move by MS to make Windows avaliable to those from countries with a lower purchasing power parity.
This is a move by MS to say, "Well, we CAN blame them for pirating our XP Pro, because we did make XP (cheapo version) avaliable, and THEY, the bastards, decided to pirate XP Pro anyways."
Good cop, Bad cop. Now they can send in the jackbooted thugs with a clean conscious, or, at least, a slightly less dismal public relations 'spin'.
3 Apps? Please. Absurd. Ridiculous.
MS spent far more time making sure that no one would be interested in running XcheaP, so us, in the rest of the world, wouldn't get a lightweight XP.
Think about it--- XP, with all the cruft stripped out? And cheaper, to boot?
Just a pedal to the medal operating system capable of running the apps I want, instead of the apps MS thinks I should be running?
Hah. Right. Need to lay off the crack.
Glad none of the 8 computers in my home, or the computers I maintain in the office, run windows anymore.
Screw this nonsense. I laugh at your outrage. Between Linux/Mac OS X, I can do anything I need to do.
Cheers,
WhiteWolf
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Oh god, the racism...
Microsoft to Asia: "Brown people are easily confused."
GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
No. I believe that they are worried about a class action suit adding two facts :
a) they are a convicted monopoly in the US
b) they would be charging a lower price for the same software on foreign markets. This would be an example of "dumping" and also a clear proof that the US stree price is an abuse of their monopoly.
Since they cannot change a) they avoid b) by crippling the low-cost version for foreign markets. This way they can say that they are not overcharging of the product in their home country. Indeed, the only Windows version that retails for less than the standard US edition is vastly inferior.
..were only used to download Netscape Navigator, this will only be used to pirate Windows XP Pro. Is the CD-burning functionality included? That would be very thoughtful of them, maybe they could just add links in the Favorites menu to popular warez sites for WinXP, since they so clearly have the consumer in mind.
The problem is that many non-English speakers also don't want "Thai menus etc.". We like our operating system in English, thanks.
Not to mention the fact that with some languages you also have to switch sides (menus on the right side of the screen, close/minimize buttons on the left), so you'll have Windows operating one way, and all non-MS apps the other. You can't force people to work like that, it's terrible.
It's a way to sell a Windows license at a low price, without creating a product that can be sold through grey markets in the West. (This was made to compete with the Linux-installed PCs as part of the Thai govt's cheap PC plan.) Now Thais can buy a Windows PC, take it home, install Win XP full version. They've paid the "Microsoft tax" even though they're using pirated software.
I doubt it, since display resolution is limited to 800x600.
Too bad Mozilla Suite has taken back seat to the separate process-based apps. Maybe Mozilla.org will rethink this strategy now?
Is your firewall an application? Is your antivirus an application? Is your volume control an application? Are the several IM's that some people run applications? I have tons of little icons for programs that are running like these but I wouldn't really call most of them applications. I have no idea how the OS is able to tell the difference.
It could really force everyone to use Java.exe.
Does anyone remember when some ancient OS was also limited to permitting only a few apps to run concurrently?
In order to get more to run at the same time, the mark--that is, the "customer", had to pay something like another three or four times the price of the OS to allow running up to ten concurrent apps, plus an hefty annual service fee. There were several levels, each permitting more apps to run with the payment of higher fees.
The purpose of this was, of course, revenue enhancement. However, this particular company sold very few licenses and soon went out of business.
It seems microsoft has decided to implement the same revenue enhancement scheme. The limited versions will eventually replace the unlimited versions of XP or whatever it will be called in the future and then one will have to pay a lot more for getting more apps to run at the same time.
There is no chance that microsoft will suffer the same fate as that ancient company. It has assured that almost everyone is hooked, addicted to it's stuff so it can afford to once again put the screws to it's "customers".
It's not really a "too bad" though. More a matter of preference, I think. Personally I find the all-in-one app a little too bulky, though admittedly it should have less overhead than running a separate email app and browser app at the same time. I still am not understanding how the user can be limited in the number of running applications. Does this mean only one IE window at a time if they've already got Word and AIM open?
I am feeling fat and sassy
And just what is considered an application? A window (Excel opens a separate window for each file open), or an executable image? Heck, I've got more than three apps running minimized in my taskbar (antivirus, IM, firewall, dnetc, UPS monitor, and so on)... I don't really see how they could limit the number of running apps -- if you limit it to just three processes running in user space, then the computer is basically worthless...
This new price scheme gets them back into the OEM playfield, so manufacturers can continue selling MS Windows instead of any GNU/Linux distro in their new PCs.
This will stop the increasing GNU/Linux awareness among non-tech people.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
... they can't split IE off, it's funny how they can restrict the number of apps running. Very strange...
It will be interesting to see if certain bundled applications (Outlook Express, IE, etc.) are affected by this limit. If not, then it could be a veiled attempt by MS to keep people from migrating to other applications.
I find this offer as inacceptable as the rest of the Slshdot crowd, but wouldn't it be possible that Microsoft knows it's market? I bet they made extensive research in Asia and it turned out that most people will be satisfied with an operating system as crippled as this. I am not really sure if I wouldn't try it if I was really short on money but wanted to run my favourite games or office app.
Maybe Linux might be 10 times more powerful but some people just like to use Word and IE? Maybe not everyone needs network because there is no broadband or LAN-Party around?
I know it sounds totally insane to us but maybe not so much to your mother or a thai. And don't forget that dealing with free operatingsystems still takes some time for a newbie, WinXP is commonly known...
Please explain to me how the target audience (3rd world countries) are supposed to be able to afford a Macintosh.
This will only encourage users to get a copy of the full Windows version so that they won't be limited in what they can do.
And that, my friend, is EXACTLY what Microsoft wants.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Microsoft will definitely succeed. It really knows how to abuse its monopoly. After the release most PCs will carry SE. And new users will consider the 3 app limit to be a limitation of the computer and not that of Windows (I'm not sayin they wont know, I'm saying they'll just consider). New users are stupid - everywhere (hackers tend to underestimate the ignorance of a normal person). In fact most new users I've met dont know what role 'Windows' plays in a computer and definitely dont know about alternatives. Ultimately they'll just learn to live with it, just like they've learned to live with BSODs and the limitations of DOS.
Actually, you may be on to something. WinME could be beaten into 100% stability, but it *couldn't* be taught not to squander the resource heap -- so it really wasn't practical as a multitasking OS. And I've noticed that WinXP doesn't multitask as smoothly as Win95/98. (At the moment I don't run Win2K as an everyday OS, so can't comment on how it compares here, but I don't remember it as having any special issues in this regard.) XPHome is worse about it than XPPro, and I wonder if it's a side effect of having some of the networking code pulled out by the roots. Yanking out even more code may have introduced issues that make it unstable under heavy multitasking.
A three app limit does seem really lame, tho -- especially since running a decent two-way firewall is going to eat one of them. I know a lot of users have this bad habit of closing and restarting apps every time they want to switch from one to another, but why forcibly entrench the habit of beginner behaviour -- unless it's to ensure the new user such a miserable experience that they upgrade to a real multitasking OS out of sheer frustration. If M$ hopes to get 'em to pony up for XPHome or Pro, I think they're in for a major market LARTing.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?