Slashdot Mirror
Average User Only Runs 2 Apps, So Microsoft Will Charge For More
Barence writes "Microsoft's decision to limit Windows 7 Starter Edition to running only three concurrent applications could force up the price of netbooks as many manufacturers opt for the more expensive Home Premium. The three-app rule includes applications running in the background but excludes antivirus, and the company claims most users wouldn't be affected by the limit. 'We ran a study which suggested that the average consumer has open just over two applications [at any time]. We would expect the limit of three applications wouldn't affect very many people.' However, Microsoft told journalists at last year's Professional Developers Conference that 70% of Windows users have between eight and 15 windows open at any one time."
id they explain to the users what "an application" is? I'm sure a quick straw poll around non-IT guys in my office asking "How many things are you running?" would result in a similar number, but then if I explained that "the internet" is a browser application, that "listening to my music" is a media player app, that "getting my email" is a mail client, and so on would bump the number up to a couple of visible apps like Word and Excel plus a futher three or four concurrent applications that are essentially invisible.
Another effect could also be to drive the usage of things like Google Docs further in the home marketplace. If you can't run Word but you can run a browser it'd make much more sense to use a browser based application.
Mind you, this could have an 'unexpected' benefit. Anyone running a bot would find they can't open a browser or play music or something. People would have a good incentive to make sure their PC is only running what it should be running.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
What if you get a virus? Oops it opens notepad and wordpad and now you can't run anything.
Hell, what about just running Antivirus? This is completely outrageous.
This is exactly why I use linux...
[On a Q6600 with 4GB RAM] I have 10 virtual desktops, and on them I _concurrently_ run:
Firefox with >150 tabs (using Tree Style Tabs for nesting);
10+ instances of acrobat reader;
VMWare running Windows XP;
as well as instant messengers, IRC, audio player, multiple VLC video players, etc
Not to mention that in that VMWare (Windows XP guest), I run a HUGE electronics design software suite... and it actually loads and runs faster in VMWare than running in native Windows XP!
Windows could never even attempt to run all these programs concurrently, smoothly, without crashes, and without delays in-between using any given app.
2 processes should be fine... after all, 640K of memory should be enough for anybody ;)
Out of curiosity has anyone ever actually seen a "Starter" version of Windows in use? I don't think I ever have. I wonder what portion of users actually use that version. That's not, of course, any justification -- I still think this is a really shitty move.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
task manager has 36 entries in the applications tab, 66 Processes, 37 open Windows.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
If one is stuck with that one could run a free OS in one of those vizualisation applications and run their mediaplayer, webbrowser etc in there, while leaving two spots for windows-only applications.
Which is why I PRAY that they do this.
nothing will push Ubuntu and linux to the masses harder than a brain-dead move like this from Microsoft.
I really REALLY hope they do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not 3.1
3.11 for Workgroups.
Built in standard networking, and it was actually pretty darned stable, even running a few apps at once. Or at least, in my experience it was.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I had to use a XP Home edition on a laptop that wouldn't run Linux/*BSD without pains 2-3 years ago. (That XP came preinstalled with the laptop accompanied by a rescue CD that extracted an image into a partition. This would result in a XP installation with lots of other crap preinstalled.)
So I first got my backups (as administrator of course) unpacked onto the XP Home box and tried to change the permissions on that backup so that it could be accessed by an account with normal user privileges. It took me nearly half an hour to realize that XP Home doesn't let you change permissions on files. Another half one to find the way Microsoft thinks this should work (Copying into a folder called sth like public documents or so. Hardrive was 80GB large and I had ~60GB of backups.). I finally found a HOWTO on the net for making a XP Professional (nearly feature complete) out of my Home edition and an installation CD using BartPE.
Result: even XP has editions which are crippled beyond being useful. This is hardly news.
I found a local dial up isp....I found Trumpet Winsock for windows...got that installed, then learned command line ftp, to get this cool new browser I'd seen at school, "Netscape 1.0".
Wow...was that ever fun. Then came the exciting times when I could actually find a friend of mine that also knew what the 'internet' was...and had a working email address!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Disclaimer: This post makes the assumption that Windows7 sh!t version really is planned to exist and really will limit you to 3 open apps.
It's 2009. In theory we're making "progress" with technology. The basic function of an OS is to provide a standard framework on which programs can run. All the fancy UI tweaks, audio and video nonsense, bla bla bla is extra. You're going to give them all the extras but limit the basic, core functionality of your software. Really, I don't understand why we need multiple versions of the OS to begin with. If you want to have add-on software...well SELL THAT - separately. Everyone buys W7 for whatever (reasonable) price. Sell an add-on pack that includes...well whatever other crap you want to consider value-add. This way if someone buys a computer and later on decides they need XYZ functionality they can just buy that and not have to reinstall (or hack) windows.
I suppose my underlying point is that it's way past time for an OS to be transparant to the end user. Give them extra software and capability if you want, but no user should need to worry about "oh noes, did I get the right windoez version? Is it going to stop my computer from doing cool things?" when a computer is delivered to their house.
Hey, car analogy! It's a 2009 Ferrari with a 1995 geo metro engine. Except even drug addicted rock stars crash ferrari's less often than windows and vista/W7 are more akin to a UPS delivery truck with fancy decals on the side. Big, ugly, and slow with valuable but hidden/inaccessible content and a fancy look on the outside disguising it all.
Oh, and 3 programs excluding AV? Ok, so let's also exempt anti-spyware, firewall, and disc encryption tools. I run at least 2 chat client, MSIE, P2P (closing and restarting screws up xfers too), webcam program that insists on coming up, solitare or other games...
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.