Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP Starter Edition Snubs P4, Athlon
Apu writes "CNET is reporting that Microsoft's Windows XP Starter Edition operating system specifically checks the result of the CPUID instruction on bootup and fails to continue if a Pentium 4 or Athlon processor is detected."
You think Microsoft would have learned after the games they played with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and DR. DOS. This will not make the anti-trust crowd any happier, and just serves to tick off the opponents of Microsoft more.
Microsoft is essentially creating a market for Linux by doing this. It's all about standardization and if companies have to purchase two different versions of Linux to use their hardware, they are going to look hard at the decision before doing so.
Microsoft claims they're using this software as a way to get pirates to start paying for the software. But tell me, what is the average person going to use: the "starter edition" that doesn't even work on their PC, or the pirated edition that does? The value of legal software indeed.
Stupid like a fox!
It seems there doing this to prevent PC Manufacturers from bundling it with the cheaper end of the higher-end PCs - probably because buisnesses and others who need a lot but don't need all the full features, would want it, as it is about half as expensive as Home edition, and a lot cheaper than Professional.
If they let it run, then, it would effectively compete with their full versions, hurting their profits!
"Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write it should be hard to understand."
Unless of course the blatently obvious applies. I would have to say that close to half of the Windows machines I see on a daily basis (including my own!) use a blank screen as their screensaver. Also don't forget that all Energy Star-compliant monitors will turn the display off after a certain period of time. I would much rather see a user get a blue screen than arbitrarily giving their computer the one-finger salute every time their screen saver kicks in or their monitor goes into energy saver mode. I can just imagine the helpdesk tickets and support calls now: "My computer locks up every day while I'm at lunch!" or "Every morning when I come in my computer has locked up."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Having lived in India, I can tell you why this won't work. The users who pirate Windows are not people who need computers only for basic word processing - they are proper users who use computers as part of their lifestyle, much like people elsewhere in the world do. They do not like their OS to be crippled in any way.
Why then, you ask, do they have to pirate Windows? The reason is cost: A user can afford to spend $100-$200 for a legal copy of Windows in the US, but in India due to the exchange rate it becomes a huge amount! It's comparable to the actual price of the desktop, and note that people spend a large fraction of their income to buy a desktop in the first place. Microsoft does not price their software according to purchasing power, instead it does a straight conversion of $$ to Rupees.
If Microsoft offers a cheaper Windows for a lesser price, people will just keep pirating the 'proper' OS for free. And sometime later, they will migrate to Linux when they find that Linux can offer them pretty much the same functionality. If MS wants people to use Windows and PAY for it, all they need to do is offer an uncrippled OS for a price that is affordable in India.
Note to Microsoft: People don't want to buy your crippled software, even if it cheap.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
I imagine that most people who would use a cracked version of the Starter Edition would just choose to use a cracked Pro Edition anyway.
At the risk of sounding new here, I am amazed at the mindset. Whatever happened to making the best product you can and trying to sell as much of it as you can? The idea at Microsoft appears to be to sell your product as much as you can by making it perform poorly compared to itself. Or something like that.
Imagine being the engineers tasked with writing the feature that disables the OS on "advanced" CPUs. What pride they must have in their work.
They are effectively competing against themselves with the cheaper product and have to make sure it isn't too good. I'm not sure it is a matter of shame, just trying to capture an additional market segment.
For example, with my software I have a number of different editions, effectively free, budget, and full (I call them the Free, Silver and Gold Edition). It took a decent amount of extra work to develop the Free and Silver Editions, and this was done by disabling features that would have been simpler to just leave in. Some people are simply not going to want to fork out for the Gold Edition, so if I can give most of what they want through one of the Silver Editions, at least I made a sale when otherwise I wouldn't have. But the danger is that the Silver Editions and the Gold Edition do compete with each other. If I leave too much in the Silver, everyone will buy that, and the Gold sales will suffer.
I think the general gist in both cases is to make a product that is good enough for people who don't want the full version, but not so good that it affects the sales of the full version.
...it is designed for low-cost, entry-level desktop PCs running value-based processors...
Uhm.... isn't it just MS-Windows XP with stuff ripped out? If so, then it is NOT "designed for low-cost, entry-level desktop PCs running value-based processors." It is designed for the exact same computers for which XP is designed.
It's marketed for cheap-assed computers. But it was designed for x86 computers.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Crippleware is what I call it.
;)
;) But I can't just give away the uncrippled version and rely on kindness. One shining example of this related to one of the beta testers for the software. He loves the games, plays them all the time apparently. Submitted no feedback, and has no intention of pitching in for the final release because the beta was uncrippled. Whoops. And he's not the only one. People are very good at taking if there is no benefit to giving. Now if I could count on the generosity of enough people, who cares if most people benefit for nothing? But the problem is that I can't.
Happens to be one of the reasons I don't use much commerical software, and kind of avoid it like the plague.
Indeed, that is an appropriate name for it too. But sometimes relying on human nature isn't enough. Humans can be such terribly selfish things.
For example, I developed my software full-time over eighteen months. This wiped out my savings and left me in a fair amount of debt. It is a bit unreasonable to expect a single person to shoulder the entire burden of the development when a number of people reap the benefits. Hence I sell the software. Maybe one day I will make enough back to try this whole crazy experiment again.
As for avoiding crippleware, I'd have to disagree. What I can't stand is when people sell something without giving you a chance to try it out beforehand. That really sucks. Time limitations are a pain too, I hate the presumption that I can dedicate 30 days to trying something out; my free time is limited and sporadic. But trial versions are a good thing. Certainly something to be encouraged. Much better than nothing at all.