Microsoft Kills 3-App Limit For Windows 7 Starter Edition

Chabil Ha' writes "Heard the rumors that the much-maligned Windows 7 Starter Edition would be able to run more than three concurrent applications? Today, the Windows team made it official: 'Based on the feedback we've received from partners and customers asking us to enable a richer small notebook PC experience with Windows 7 Starter, we've decided to enable Windows 7 Starter customers the ability to run as many applications simultaneously as they would like, instead of being constricted to the 3 application limit that the previous Starter editions included. We believe these changes will make Windows 7 Starter an even more attractive option for customers who want a small notebook PC for very basic tasks, like browsing the web, checking email and personal productivity.' Small consolation, of course, if you want to watch a DVD natively, but I'm sure this won't stop the Slashdot crowd from enabling it."

Comments

Outbreak Of Sanity

[maz2331]

At least someone realized that it was an epicly bad idea before the thing was released into the real world.

Re:Outbreak Of Sanity

[Brian Gordon]

They might actually make more money this way. Microsoft seems torn between:

1. Cripple the cheap version to force people to buy the expensive Windows while keeping the sticker price low. Most users don't consider switching to Linux an option so we can charge as much as we want.
2. Maybe basic netbook users aren't even looking for advanced features that scare people away from a new OS

The only reason for arbitrary limitations (it costs them nothing to unlock them) is to encourage people to buy the more expensive version instead. That logic has worked in the past because users haven't seen anywhere else to go (except even further up the price range with Apple), but Linux is doing well on netbooks and I think MS is starting to figure that out.

Re:Outbreak Of Sanity

[ozmanjusri]

That logic has worked in the past because users haven't seen anywhere else to go (except even further up the price range with Apple), but Linux is doing well on netbooks and I think MS is starting to figure that out.

The trouble is, Microsoft is just starting to figure it out, others are way ahead of them.

There's about to be a watershed in the OS field, and a company which is collecting 85%+ profits won't be able to compete. With Qualcomm, Freescale, Longsoon, et al prepping supercheap machines, there simply won't be the margins for an expensive MS OS. Microsoft will have to reduce its prices and profitability just to stay in the netbook/smartbook market.

They've even managed to scare their long-time collaborator, Intel, into developing Moblin. If Intel didn't do something to keep a toehold in the low-power/cost end of the market, they could see themselves swamped with ARM, MIPS, Snapdragon etc Linux netboox/smartbooks that are cheaper, get better battery life and still run most of the Linux application stack.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Goldberg's Pants]

"a small notebook PC for very basic tasks"

I would never trust Windows to do anything OTHER than very basic tasks.

It's like trusting a 3 year old to stack all your fine China.

Re:Other suggestions that make about as much sense

[MichaelSmith]

How about making window management not block when a modal dialog is open?

Re:Who says netbooks are only suited for basic tas

[jo42]

Marketing has a very, very short memory. Not too long ago people where word-processing, spread-sheeting, data-basing, developing software and even Windows, heck, even using AutoCAD on a Pentium II. Or a 486 if you go farther back a bit more.

Or you know, was the plan all along

[Auraiken]

This seems more like they were marketing it as going to be limited and people were turned off by that but it kept the product in the public eye. Waited for a bit. Now they're marketing it as without the limit as to improve the perception of the product, leading to more people wanting it.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Shadow of Eternity]

a better example is sending an 8 year old to the grocery store. You CAN do it, but unless you give them VERY specific instructions they'll come back with a shopping cart full of poptarts and cereal.

Re:Windows 7 is a good release

[exploder]

"It's not as good as Linux, but it may be as good as their own product from eight years ago."

Yeah, that's a real effective shill.

Surprise, surprise....

[QuietLagoon]

Impose an artificial 3-app limit in a new OS. The get all sorts of positive press coverage when you rescind that limit. Brilliant marketing.

.
But what about the technical aspect of this? Microsoft is pulling out all the stops in its attempt to create a "marketing buzz" for Windows 7. Was Vista really that bad that Microsoft has to attempt to manipulate the press and websites to this extent in order to give the illusion that Windows 7 is better?

If Windows Vista was so bad, do you really expect Windows 7 (a.k.a. Windows Vista 1.2) to be that much better? Or is the marketing effort the actual improvement here?

Does the Emperor really have clothes this time?

Re:Windows 7 is a good release

[artor3]

How can you really believe that? Do you really think that Microsoft released a great version that everyone liked, just to trick people before giving them a shittier version?? What possible motivation could they have to do that?

I swear, the die-hard MS haters make that company out to be some sort of cartoon villain.

For the record, my 6 year old laptop runs the latest version of W7 just fine. I doubt I'll put it on my desktop any time soon, but if/when my employer rolls it out, I won't mind.

Re:Other suggestions that make about as much sense

[Entropius]

THIS.

Holy fuck, this.

Why do we *still* have windows you can't fucking minimize until you answer their inane questions?

Re:"even more attractive"... what?

[Entropius]

Sure it can.

I use ubuntu on both my laptop and desktop. Both work just fine with very little hassle.

Ever tried installing Windows on a machine and then spending the next few hours updating drivers and security patches, and then downloading all the stuff you need (firefox/OpenOffice/trillian/winamp/whatever) to actually get your stuff done? THAT is a hassle.

Installing Ubuntu consists of:

1) stick thumbdrive in netbook
2) boot netbook
3) click "install" and decide how big you want the partition to be
4) notice that while you're doing that it has found your wireless network
5) run pidgin and talk to people while waiting a few minutes for the install
6) tell friends you're going down for reboot and will be right back
7) boot working system with tons of useful software

Re:Who says netbooks are only suited for basic tas

[Wrath0fb0b]

Not too long ago people where word-processing, spread-sheeting, data-basing, developing software and even Windows, heck, even using AutoCAD on a Pentium II. Or a 486 if you go farther back a bit more.

Not too long ago, I remember having to wait 15-20 minutes to TeX up my research papers, only to find out that I missed a curly brace somewhere.

Not too long ago, my spreadsheet couldn't import data from a MySQL database halfway around the world through the internet.

Not too long ago, the database that I run on that other computer would need a refrigerator-sized mainframe.

Not too long ago, developing software meant that it was faster to manually read for syntax errors than to just compile and have the IDE flag the errors. On a project 1/20th the size, at least half of which was implementing things that are now in libraries. Actually, as I recall, I didn't have an IDE, just a dumb terminal. The debugger was crap to -- it pales in comparison to what I have today.

Never used CAD software, but I bet dollars to donuts that in the 12 years since the Pentium II, it's also come a damned long way. And that's the problem with these comparisons -- people may have been doing the same tasks but they were still doing much much less than we casually do today. In many ways, we the usefulness of the tasks themselves expands to fill the available power -- our programs and environments get better and better.

If 10 years ago you would have told me that I'd be running a miniature search engine on my computer, crawling and indexing my filesystems to save me the trouble of finding files, I'd say you were nuts. Today, I can't remember how I lived without Google Desktop: ctrl ctrl + filename and the results are there. To say that somehow this is comparable to my computer 10 years ago because they both perform the same basic function -- allowing access to saved files -- is disingenuous. They are the same in the way that a steak knife and a chainsaw are the same. That all goes for the modern web, AJAX and all, versus the web that I browsed back in the dark old days. Same for programming, same for just about everything I can think of.

Computers do more than they did. This is a GOOD THING. Stop convincing yourself that somehow what they do now is good enough for the future. I hope it's not, and I'm working to make sure that it's not by pursuing more ways that my computer can do more for me.