Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Sets Direction of Low-Power CPU Market
Vigile writes "News is circulating about Microsoft setting hardware limits for the Windows 7 Starter Edition rather than sticking to a 3-application limit. With just a few simple specifications, Microsoft has set the tech world spinning — not only is Microsoft deciding that a netbook is now defined as having a 10.2-in. or smaller screen, but by setting a 15-watt limit to CPU thermal dissipation they may have inadvertently set the direction of CPU technology for years to come. If Microsoft sticks to that licensing spec, then AMD, Intel, VIA, and maybe even NVIDIA (who might be building an x86 CPU) will no doubt put a new focus on power efficiency in order to cash in on the lucrative netbook market."
the article didn't explain how they were going to improve the BSOD
That's not all they wouldn't explain:
Would Microsoft charge PC makers less per copy for Home Premium than it charges to run the exact same Home Premium SKU on a full-fledged notebook or desktop system? Would Microsoft attempt to establish itself as the judge of what is a "netbook"? Microsoft officials had nothing more to say about my questions.
The problem has become that there is simply nothing left to improve in a typical OS for the vast majority of users. If you have a browser, an spreadsheet, and a wordprocessor, you cover 95% of your users' needs. So what can you do for sales? This seems to be the plan: (1) Increase general shininess and bling. (2) Reduce essential functionality relative to earlier distributions. (3) Price the OS on tiers based on restoring the essential functionality. You are seeing the self destruction of an antiquated business model, namely that OS sales should be profitable.
Here is a hint to all of the companies in the OS market: give your best distribution awayand use it as a client for services that google can't profitably provide for free.
That's the future.
Just callin' it like I see it.
It would be a better world if the CPU manufacturers required Microsoft to meet certain standards.
Actually, there's plenty to improve in a typical OS: making the OS more componentized, programmable, adding new layers of APIs for different functional domains, and otherwise supporting the developers that write code for that OS, so that they can be more productive and write more functional code in a fraction of time. For example, things like COM, WMI, DirectX, .NET, or the new WDF toolkit for driver development in Windows Vista. I don't see how you can separate any of this from the rest of the OS. The job of the OS is to bridge the gap between the developer and the hardware, and this is all part of it. And all these things have continued to evolve and will probably keep evolving for a very, very long time.
Since Microsoft has imposed an artificial limitation that was not previously present, which will undoubtedly inconvenience a number of users, it is hardly a stretch to define the limitation as "crippling". It is, however, a stretch to claim that such a limitation is not a limitation if previously disclosed. I know all analogies are flawed, but let me try one: You buy a car that will not drive faster than 35 MPH (or KPH, depending on where you live. I digress.), and the dealer offers you the "opportunity" to "upgrade" your vehicle to the "better" model, which has no such governor. Are you upgrading? Or uncrippling?
.
If Microsoft is successful (through marketing "incentives") in strong-arming hardware OEMs to lower the hardware capabilities of future netbooks, that is nothing less than an enormous win for Microsoft.
I am nothing but amazed that the hardware OEMs do nothing but roll over and say to Microsoft, "please, Sir, may I have another."
Well, it's software. Even if you get $0,01 per copy you're still better off than if you wouldn't be in this market at all. Remember, an additional copy still comes to no additional cost.
Perhaps though it is lucrative as in "lose this market to Linux and it will be the beginning of the end". So even paying OEM's to install Windows could be profitable because such move secures desktop OS monopoly further.
Actually, there's plenty to improve in a typical OS: making the OS more componentized, programmable, adding new layers of APIs for different functional domains, and otherwise supporting the developers that write code for that OS, so that they can be more productive and write more functional code in a fraction of time. For example, things like COM, WMI, DirectX, .NET, or the new WDF toolkit for driver development in Windows Vista. I don't see how you can separate any of this from the rest of the OS.
You don't see how it can be separate? Like GTK, OpenGL... shall I go on? I hope you mean that you CAN see how it could be separated, but Microsoft WON'T separate it. They make too much money when people can't take the DirectX modules from Windows and hack them into OSX/Linux. Technically, or legally.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.