Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP Starter Edition off to Slow Start
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft may have started shipping its cheaper version of Windows in Asia, but getting support for its low-cost computing vision is still very much a work in progress. It seems Starter Edition has not gained much interest from vendors, nor has it generated much interest from end users." I haven't seen any sort of consumer research, but I imagine people don't like to have their number of possible network connections restrained by the host operating system.
Even better, you are repeating what the original article said. Gives support to the accuracy of your statement.
MS has the starter edition primarily for political reasons, attempts to sell only in poor countries with high piracy rates. As the article said, consumer tend to buy hardware sans O/S and load it with a $5 pirate copy. Unless they can buy the pirate copy of started edition for $3, what incentive is there?
I don't imaging to many of us are going to cry long over MS misfortune in this case. They have plenty of fortune in other cases.
The only things not included in home are support for domains and one user level.
That's basically it.
Oh by the way, naming it Shorthorn is just as bad as XP Starter, MS should have the standard Longhorn with fewer features, and come out market Longerhorn as the premium.
Longhorn is just the codename for the next version of Windows, not the final name (atleast I hope not). Just like "Chicago" was the codename for the original Windows 95. We have yet to see what naming scheme Microsoft is actually going to market.
Windows XP SP2 limits the number of possible TCP connection attempts per second to 10 from an unlimited number in SP1. This can affect performance on server and P2P programs that need to open many outbound connections at the same time.
Notes - With the new implementation, if a P2P or some other network program attempts to connect to 100 sites at once, it would only be able to connect to 10 per second, so it would take it 10 seconds to reach all 100. In addition, even though the setting was registry editable in SP1, it is now only possible to edit by changing it directly in the system file tcpip.sys. Keep in mind this is a cap only on incomplete outbound connect attempts per second, not total connections. Servers and P2P programs can definitely be affected by this new limitation. Use the fix as you see fit.
When you are using your Windows XP system as a File-server of a network of system, how many systems can connect (use a shared resource ) at the same time to a Windows XP-system ?
- Windows XP Professional : 10 simultaneous file-sharing connections ( same limitation as in Windows NT4 workstation and Windows 2000 Professional ) - Windows XP Home Edition : 5 simultaneous file-sharing connections ( Windows 95,98, ME do not have a known limit of simultaneous file-sharing connections )
Source of this information : Microsoft Windows XP Professional Resource Kit Documentation Appendix G: Differences between Windows XP Home Edition, page 1539
VNC is just nasty compared to terminal server. There's a lot of stuff M$ has wrong, licensing that tech was something they did right.
Terminal service forwarded over a compressed SSH connection is reasonably usable over a modem, on broadband it's very, very close to being there.
(i.e. I can develop on my desktop without any noticable lag in typing)
VNC is great for an occasional site or to push a file around, terminal service can actually be used to get work done.
1) Windows
Developed by Xerox, licensed from Apple, and Microsoft was on the market basically last.
2) VB
Copied from Dartmouth basic, everybody else had something at least as good, if not better(eg Hypercard)
3)32 bit OS
Old, obvious idea, Microsoft was last to market
4).NET
A copy of Java which itself was an incremetal improvement of a bunch of older stuff. Microsoft is basically last to market.
As for the stock, the one problem with being a monopoly is that after you already have 95% of the market, it is reall hard to grow faster than the market does. Windows Server is losing to Linux in the marketpalce because:
a) Windows Server is a much crapier product.
b) Windows server is much more expensive
c) Miscrosoft can't buy Linux like they have done, or tried to do every other time that they were outcompeted.
It is hard to see how any of that is Ballmer's fault. He has been dealt a really lousy hand if the metric of success is stock price, and frankly, he has been playing it really well. Any rational company attempting to maximize profit would have switched to Linux ages ago. That they haven't is a testament to Ballmer's powers of persuasion.
The Chen Camp was the thing that made Microsoft the defacto OS, and the reason why people don't defect to other OSes: applications.
Using the Motley Fool's terminology, it looks like the Chen Camp lived in the Stage 2 days and the MSDN Camp is winning out in Stage 3.
I think your post adds to this guy's article and perhaps sheds some light as to what is going on in Redmond. I have to admit I find it interesting that Longhorn has been delayed for so long and that they have until recently totally dropped the IE ball.
Someone has been dealing with the asian piracy market lately (at least in the Philippines) A week ago I noticed a couple of the usual sellers had packed up and replaced everything with a scant few original titles and lots of dust filled cabinets. Today all of them have (visually) cleaned up their act. Not a pirated CD in sight. The scale of it is really suprising - hundreds of shops!
Now it's like buying porn, some hustler flashes a few titles to figure your reaction. (Yes, my (human, biological) wife and I buy porn)