Windows 7 Starter Edition — 3 Apps Only

CrustyFace writes "Cybernit reports that the Starter Edition version of Windows 7 will only allow the user to run 3 applications at once. Targeted at notebooks, this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation, however it is a bold move from Microsoft, and it will be interesting to see how the operating system sells."

Comments

What qualifies as an application?

[harblzarbl]

Does explorer.exe count? and if not, then what about, say, msword.exe? Are you really limited to 3 Apps, or is it 3 non-microsoft apps? If it survives, this can only get uglier.

Boy that's the dumbest idea ever...

[tjstork]

Because, in the world of Windows, Windows doesn't really know what an application is. It has processes and windows and that's it. You can and will have a single process with multiple root windows, so, if you go by that, you screw the users - indeed, with Office actually.

If you go by processes, a very fundamental design difference between Windows and Linux begins to show. In Windows, processes do not have parents. If one process spawns another, they are always peers. So, while in Linux, once could theoretically make a graph of an "application", and do an "application limit" count, in Windows, you really can't.

A simple case in point would be if you have a browser and an EXE associated with it, or, launch a browser from an EXE via ShellExecute...

It's just a dumb idea. Microsoft is going the route of GM. They used to be aggressive and innovative, for the people that liked them, and now, every time they do something cool, they do something stupid twice over.

PS. I'm still bitter about SVG not being in Internet Explorer.

3 is 2 more than an iphone runs at once

[Anonymous Coward]

So that makes it bound to sell super well.

please, release this

[poetmatt]

I hope that windows releases start edition on every new pc/notebook. Just imagine all the tech support issues: "I can't browse the web AND listen to music at the same time?"

linux would be adopted so fast that my head would swirl.

Re:You must mean the iPhone

[IanCal]

Great idea, let's protect the customers from themselves whether they like it or not. Running 0 apps at the same time takes even less power and is vastly more stable.

Hmm

[Bert64]

1, AV
2, Anti spyware
3, Firewall

Now you can't be owned, because the OS won't run the malware...

Re:These are OEM sales, millions more than Linux

[SpryGuy]

Actually, I don't see this as any different from a lot of other companies.

The whole point here is to practically give away a very, very low cost version of Windows, and to then entice them to upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium (which will upgrade in place over the internet, and which won't affect performance much, if at all). That way the entry price is way-low.

How many companies do you know that give away limited free versions, and offer upgrades or more fleshed out versions for a given price? Thouands. It's completely standard and accepted practice. Let people try before they sink a ton of money into it.

A 3-app limitation isn't a huge one for low-power users, and if they find themselves bumping into that limit often enough to be frustrating, well, they're just a click and a credit card number away from eliminating it.

Calling it a "deliberately crappy product" is propagandistic spin. I have half a dozen "lite" versions of apps on my iPhone that were free or low cost. They let me try it before sinking more money into the full version of the app. Many software comanies give you 30 day trials for free as well. Again, how is this any different? Are ALL these companies guilty of making a "deliberately crappy product"??

Hell no. It's just smart marketing. Even drug dealers use it: First taste is free! :-)

It's universal, and if anything, I can't believe it's taken MS this long to offer such a deal. I guess the rise of Netbooks gave them their first real incentive.

Students and kids, and individuals with VERY tight budgets, might find this version completely satisfactory. Most people won't bother with it, or will upgrade soon after. So what's the big deal?

I don't see how the ends or the means are any different here. I don't see how you are managing to single MS out as being some huge evil with THIS as your evidence. (god knows, there's plenty of other real evidence out there... this isn't even close).