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."

Comments

bar set pretty high

[Locutus]

I don't quite get the big deal here since they are just setting the bar as high as needed to make sure Windows kinda runs on the hardware. Microsoft must be the one to set the bar because if it was anyone else, that bar would probably be too low to have any fun or use running Windows.

15 watts for the CPU is huge compared to what some of the ARM chips are doing while also doing HD video.

If anything, these specs for Windows netbooks is just another way to segment the winbook market to make sure a much higher price can be obtained for notebooks. After all, Microsoft can not have the netbook market grow up and start eating into its profits and people getting the idea that the OS is way too much of the cost of the device.

So, it's really all about marketing and little else. yawn.

LoB

Re:bar set pretty high

[SoTerrified]

I don't quite get the big deal here

Because MS will set the specs. Since some customers will only buy Windows, all the hardware manufacturers will build within those specs. And those specs will be with us for the duration of Windows 7.

Why is it a big deal?

When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site so they must be US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) or 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches.

Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.

I see, but why did the English build them like that?

Because the first railway lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Well, why did they use that gauge in England?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did their wagons use that odd wheel spacing?

Because, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads. Because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts.

So who built these old rutted roads?

The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The Roman roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts?

The original ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by the wheels of Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.

So even though we could've designed a better Space Shuttle, because of the limitation of Roman war chariots, the boosters are not optimal. Win 7 vs. netbooks might not be so extreme, but it's still a force that's going to insure the hardware isn't designed the best it could be... It'll be designed towards the Win 7 specs. (With thanks to http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html)

Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention if you RTFA(I know, but i got bored) it says on top of this BS that Win7 Start will STILL have the 3 app limit. To me that is gonna be the deal breaker. The only worry here is that they are going to offer Win7 Starter for sooo cheap that we will end up with pretty much every PC, be it Netbook or low cost desktop, that would have come with XP Home or Vista Home Basic end up with Win7 Starter.

If that happens and they don't make it VERY clear before purchase, with a sticker on the machine or some other obvious and hard to miss label then i can see this ending up a good case for a class action lawsuit. And by what metrics do MSFT decide what constitutes a "program"? Will IE not count but FF or Opera will? What about WMP Vs Media Monkey or iTunes? Windows Firewall VS Comodo or Zonealarm? Sounds to me if like in TFA they stick with the 3 app limit they are just begging for a whole mess of lawsuits. Because unless they make everything built into Windows like IE and WMP and Windows Firewall count against the limit they are gonna get nailed in court. Real Shame, as Win7 looked like it might actually be a decent OS. Trust Ballmer and his marketing dollars to totally bone a winner with marketing BS.

The words "mostly", "web", and "etc."

[tepples]

If netbooks are mostly for email, web, etc., who needs a particular OS?

You may need a particular operating system if "mostly" does not equal "entirely", or if the tasks that you intend to run on a low-cost subnotebook are highly "etc." You may need a particular operating system if your "web" site uses a particular plug-in that has no complete Free implementation, such as Silverlight or Flash.

Re:lacking info

[John Hasler]

> Here is a hint to all of the companies in the OS market: give your best distribution
> away and use it as a client for services that google can't profitably provide for free.

And use it to lock the customers in.

> That's the future.

Grim, isn't it?

Not all computers are x86

[tepples]

Flash has been on Linux for ages now.

On ARM, or only on x86?

Silverlight has Moonlight which is sorta comparable

Moonlight supports Silverlight 1, which by now is only good for showing "Please upgrade to Silverlight 2" messages, just as the Flash Player 7 on Wii Internet Channel is only good for showing "Please upgrade to Flash Player 9" messages. And a lot of sites use Silverlight with non-free video formats whose freely available decoders aren't ported to ARM even if they are ported to Linux.

Competition....

[SpekkioMofW]

As per TFA, this is nothing new - they had specs for XP and Vista, too. It would be nice to see some genuine competition for MS in this emerging market - i.e. Apple.

Hence, Microsoft hired Marc Tremblay.

[reporter]

Back in April, according to a report by "The Register", Marc Tremblay began work at Microsoft. Tremblay was the lead architect of several processors at Sun Microsystems.

At Microsoft, Tremblay joined the Strategic Software/Silicon Architectures team, nicknamed "SiArch".

Today's news that Microsoft will set a wattage limit on netbooks running the starter edition of Windows 7 clearly shows why Microsoft has an SiArch team and why Microsoft hires "processor" guys and gals. Only a team packed with "processor" experts can do the kinds of studies that are needed to determine what is a reasonable wattage to impose on netbooks.

Why must Microsoft spend several million dollars on a SiArch team to pick a simple wattage? Microsoft is facing severe competition from Linux at the low end.

If Microsoft picked a wattage that is too low, then the netbook manufacturers could not build such a system and would rebel -- right back into the arms of Linux. Microsoft absolutely needed to pick a realistic number.

Until April of 2008, Linux owned the majority of the netbook market. Then, Microsoft submitted its Windows XP to that market and quickly seized 90% of it. Microsoft wants to keep that market share. So, if Microsoft wants to impose hardware restrictions on netbooks, Microsoft will ensure that those hardware restrictions are reasonable.

Lucrative Netbook Market?

[dangitman]

... a new focus on power efficiency in order to cash in on the lucrative netbook market.

I don't think that word means what the writer thinks it means. In what way is the netbook a "lucrative market"? The profit margins must be almost non-existent. It's a race to the bottom, and I think many companies will regret chasing this market.

Re:The lowering of the bar

[AHuxley]

Exactly. MS can dictate the hardware product line : Do as we say or you will not get a MS sticker. You will be in the bargain bin with the junk from Taiwan, Korea (South owned, made in the north ;) ) and a brand from China looking to emerge.
Or you can help MS trash Linux with low hardware numbers and get a sticker. Another plus is real shelf space too.
MS can fool most people with its OS, its just for netbooks, dont expect so much. Most will just be happy for the low price.
The real win for MS is Linux is crippled too. Every OS likes more RAM, a faster cpu and a plug in power setting.
The low end was breaking out, Linux was winning.
After this, its just a toy market, with MS on top.
MS cannot make a good OS, so they kill the hardware base for the rest. The MS can say its the hardware, all OS are lame on it :)

Re:lacking info

[geekprime]

Yes that IS a nice theory.

Sadly it's failing badly in practice as evidenced by the continuing inability of MS to actually produce secure, bug free code.

I can easily control the quality of MY code, I have no control (or usually knowledge) whatsoever of the bugs in the MS supplied libs/dlls.

IMHO, the .net framework is not worth the time it took to learn it, directX is better but (of course) still has the MS method bias.

I personally think that they are much more about MS controlling your ability to easily support other platforms than being as good as they should (or could) be.