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."
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 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.
On the bright side, when installing Linux on those machines we'll waste much less money on the "Microsoft tax". Windows users may not be getting a great deal though.
In short, he says that: - Windows Explorer, Command Prompt, Task Manager, Control Panel applets, other Windows system tools don't count - Many applications that run as system services and present themselves through the notification area (aka system tray) don't count (anti-virus, firewall, little utilities, etc)... - The version he tested doesn't exempt installers, but Microsoft said that they should be - Internet Explorer is NOT exempt, but there is no limit on the number of tabs you can open - If you don't like the three-app limit, there is a built-in way in Windows to upgrade to a higher edition that doesn't have the limitation. You don't have to reinstall Windows or lose your data or anything; it's just an online purchase and a change of product key, and the upgraded features are unlocked with a reboot
So it's not like you're screwed if your computer came with Starter and you need more. But if you don't need more, hey, you just saved some money....
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?
You forgot my favorite-I'm a PC and I come in 7 different flavors of Windows 7. Guess wrong and you will have to go and buy another version or upgrade. Which is the right version for you? How should I know? Think of it as an adventure!
/Mac just looks at him funny/ Okay......uhhhh....that is just really REALLY dumb. I don't even want to be compared to something that stupid. Why would you even WANT to come in seven versions, anyway?
/PC looks at Mac shocked/ To maximize my IP profit potential, of course!
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.
It grieves me immensely to say this, but nothing Microsoft does will stop netbooks from shipping with Windows installed. No amount of self-inflicted sabotage can compensate for the irrational loss aversion [wikipedia.org] that characterises most computer users. They just don't feel they can afford to be without Wind
For those of us who remember, multi-tasking (after a fashion) was made possible on Windows 3.1 via the TSR - Terminate-and-Stay-Resident programs that left a stub, inert but still in RAM - that allowed a limited task-switching capability.
TSR was not a way to have multi-tasking on Windows 3.1; TSR was a way to have pseudo-multi-tasking in DOS before Windows [and other multi-tasking environments such as DESQ(view)] came by. In fact, most TSR apps would NOT work in Windows.
Of course, TSR-multitasking was not really multitasking, since the TSR was not really 'running' at the same time as whatever you were running under DOS. Multitasking was offered by Windows (which before version 3.0 did not offer 'real' multitasking either). or by other pro
This is proof that corporations that arise from your beloved "market" can be every bit as evil and draconian as the government. And don't even give me that B.S. that monopolies wouldn't arise if there was less government intervention in markets, Stadard oil arising when there was NO government intervention in markets ring a bell? In short Ayn Rand fans time to find another paradigm that maps the real world.
A smart person questions BOTH concentrated public and private power which is why I hope OSS wins in the long run as it's inherently decentralized and avoids BOTH public and private monopolies on production that lead to debacles like this on private side and debacles like the "v-chip" on the public side.
Don't use the excuse that this shouldn't be done on a netbook, because it'll only show how long it's been since you've visited a university classroom.
When I taught, I didn't let students use computers in my classroom, and I wouldn't now. But I won't use that excuse: I will use the excuse that you appear to have mixed up the words "would" and "wouldn't" in my previous post, and thus have made an argument that completely agrees with me. Thanks. I appreciate it. You make some very good points.:)
Uuuuhhhhh....sorry, but that was XP and Vista starter. Those folks will now be getting Win7 Basic. They have already stated that Win7 Starter WILL [pcworld.com] get sold on Netbooks in the good old US of A. And as I said, that is just to start. I can easily see a scenario where MSFT prices Win7 sooooo cheap that pretty much all the desktops and laptops that get Vista Basic or XP Home now end up with Starter. Then MSFT can "maximize their IP" by trying to push upgrades on all those poor saps that got boned.
Back in April, according to a report [theregister.co.uk] 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 [itwire.com]. 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.
... OEMs will not offer Windows 7 options. If netbooks are mostly for email, web, etc., who needs a particular OS? All seem to do those basics well enough (often with the same software ported around to fill the market).
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.
Flash has been on Linux for ages now. In most distros its just an apt-get away from being installed. Silverlight has Moonlight which is sorta comparable, but in all my browsing I really haven't come to an occasion that Silverlight was ever necessary.
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.
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.
IBM tried something like this back in the day. They decided to write a new operating system to limit PC's to the 286 chip. IBM made multiple mistakes in developing OS/2, but this attempt to keep PC's from eating into their mini-computer market is what led them to make most of them.
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 [astrodigital.org])
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.
That's utter bs. If you bother to check wikipedia [wikipedia.org], you'll find out that diameter of the boosters are 12.17 ft. That's not us standard gauge by any means. Plus, if you think about it, NASA doesn't have any issues shipping the main fuel tank assembly to florida.
most of the netbook still have options that use some flavor of linux as OS, so who cares if it runs Windows 7 or not? Personally I don't want my netbook running Windows 7 or even XP because it's not designed for it (consuming too much resource).
Product differentiation. If you want the premium netbook with the big screen and the low power chip, your choices are full-fat Vista that limps like a three legged dog, or Linux that flies. Good Jorb, Mr. Ballmer!
Linux runs on just about anything, these days, and if it doesn't, NetBSD does.
Get an ipod that can run IPodLinux [ipodlinux.org], plug in one of these [thinkgeek.com], and a pair of these [i-glassesstore.com], and you'll be ready to dodge bullets.;-)
With the above, they can sell as many of their crippled, gimped notebooks as they want; you can use that stuff and the hacked ipod to create your own system. If you don't mind the weight, there's still this [lifehacker.com] old trick, too.
Microsoft can do whatever they want. All we need to do is route around them.
Stop being afraid of them; they have no power. We can do whatever we like, and there is nothing they can do about it...for the simple reason that there are so many more of us. Microsoft are only one company.
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.
... 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.
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.
Microsoft has always endeavored to lower the bar of innovation. Why should Windows 7 be any different? It is expensive to innovate. It is less expensive to use a monopoly to stifle innovation
.
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."
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:)
And cloud computing could make that happen because it should make the client OS irrelevant. We don't have to do anything "to" Microsoft. Just build world-class productivity apps that use open standards and run in the cloud. This forces Microsoft to compete on a more level playing field as it can no longer leverage its OS hegemony because Firefox on Linux works exactly like Firefox on Windows XP/Vista/7.
Google Docs is one potential Microsoft killer. Unfortunately, Google Docs is _still_ in beta (after how many years? -- if we count Writely, and I think we should) and you'd better believe it's "beta" because its still feature poor (which is more an "alpha" characteristic) and buggy (I just lost a document I was working on last night). OK, Windows users will be used to that behvior, but that's not the point. Google, perhaps the most of all the major cloud computing vendors (e.g., Amazon, Yahoo!), has the best chance to finally put Microsoft in its place by making the OS irrelevant.
And, that's how you kill Microsoft.
So, what's the problem, Google? Why aren't you throwing everything you have at making Google Docs a world-class, cloud-based productivity application suite? Or, at least, making it a priority project (which, at present, it obviously is not)? As it currently stands, the Google Docs mini-suite is a good start, but its apps are not yet good enough to get hardcore users of Microsoft productivity apps to switch. Until that happens, Microsoft is going to continue to attempt to control the "cloud threat" using its Windows OS. When netbooks can access powerful applications in the non-Microsoft cloud, it won't matter (for a large portion of the netbook owners/buyers) what OS is running on their cloud client. And, that is Microsoft's worst nightmare.
In closing, I would be remiss to not point out that the cloud already is helping make Microsoft's OS-enforced "app limit" irrelevant. Firefox only counts as one OS application. But, Google Docs is actually three applications (writer, spreadsheet, presentation tool). So the "three app" limit is relatively easy to get around when you're working in the cloud.
When cloud-based apps get good enough and the other cost-reducing advantages (especially to business owners) of cloud computing are considered, there will be no rational reason why Microsoft doesn't become "just another cloud computing vendor."
...And cloud computing could make that happen because it should make the client OS irrelevant....
This might be true for those who have a VERY fast Internet connection. If everybody's Internet connection were as fast as the average hard disk access and at least as reliable, universal network computing, as you describe it will still not kill Microsoft. Even if I had such a connection, I would not trust some outside company to house all my data, ready to give it at the drop of a hat to every Tom Dick and Harry
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Please god, stop the madness. Starter edition is an edition that they plan to sell for next to nothing to developing (read: third world) nations in order to provide the same kernel and ability as the rest of the business world (ideally to increase their participation in the market and get them out of the "developing nation" category by fostering growth of the IT sector and all the dependencies it places upon an economy.)
Starter Edition is not Netbook Edition. There is no Netbook Edition. I repeat: There Is No Netbook Edition of 7.
Here are the editions of Windows 7, from least capability to highest, and each successive entry is a superset of the previous one's capabilities:
Windows 7 Starter: OEM distribution to "developing markets" only. We're talking third world here. China? No. India? No. A lot of African nations apply. Sold for dirt cheap. Windows 7 Home Basic: Retail distribution to "emerging markets." Like China, India, Taiwan to a lesser extent, basically not fully developed nations that are economically growing. Windows 7 Home Premium: This is what your netbook will have if you buy it yourself. Windows 7 Business: This is what your netbook will have if you bought it from the "Small Business" section of the online retailer. Windows 7 Ultimate: This is medium sized businesses and developers will likely use. Basically a one-off type license of the following edition. Windows 7 Enterprise: This is for volume license agreements only, and is identical to Ultimate.
If you're reading Slashdot, chances are, you won't be able to buy Starter edition anywhere. In fact, I'd like to see you get a price on it. From anyone.
Except that few people in the developing world will really be interested in being limited like that. Its only a matter of time before they all run Enterprise. And yes, I live in Africa.
The reason I can't give you a price for "Starter" is there is absolutely no market for it here. Dirt cheap is meaningless compared to free. On top of that a lot will stick with malware target number 1 (XP) because it runs fairly well on low spec machines (think P2-P3).
Then there are the few that have gone or are going the lin
There's no doubt in anyone's mind that there's a lot of software written for the Windows API that businesses starting in developing nations would like to use. Or at least, it would be an extraordinary claim to say that there is no market.
History says you're wrong. History says, Microsoft put out an XP starter edition, they put out a Vista starter edition, and for whatever reason, they're continuing with a 7 starter edition.
And yes, it is a matter of time before they all run enterprise or switch to Linux. It
Seriously/., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
Was, past tense. Between Windows Vista and Windows 7, Microsoft swapped the roles of Starter Edition and Home Basic. In Windows Vista, Starter Edition was for the third world and Home Basic was for entry-level hardware in the industrialized world. But in Windows 7, Home Basic is for the third world and Starter Edition is for low-cost subnotebook PCs.
Seriously/., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
And, from TFA:
Windows 7 Starter Edition, unlike XP Starter Edition, will be for sale to users in both developing and developed nations.
That's why/. is called News for Nerds, Stuff that matters. When something that was one way is now another, many people call that news.
In the time you've taken to call/. dumb, you could have RTFA and learned also:
Specifically, according to TechARP's information, Microsoft's maximum specs for machines it will consider to be netbooks/"small notebooks" will change in the following ways:
Screen size: With XP and Vista, maximum allowable screen size was 12.1 inches; with Windows 7, it will be 10.2 inches
Storage: Maximum limits for XP and Vista: 160 GB HDD or 32 GB SDD; with Windows 7, it will be 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SDD
Graphics: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks was "less than or equal to DX9; with Windows 7, there will be no limitation
CPUs: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks had to have "single core processors that do not exceed 1 GHz frequency, or Intel Atom (N270, N280, 230, Z500, Z510, Z515, Z520, Z530, Z540, Z550); Intel Celeron 220; AMD (MV-40, 1050P, TF-20, Geode LX, Athlon 2650e, Sempron 210U); VIA (C7-M ULV, Nano U1700, U2250, U2300, U2400 or U2500). With Windows 7, the maximum will be "single core processors that do not exceed 2 GHz frequency, and have a CPU thermal design power that is less than or equal to 15 W, not including the graphics and chipset."
Why can't I just go and install Starter Edition on my Pentium D? Oh i'm sure you will be able to install it if you get your hands on a non-vendor specific copy or a vendor specific copy of the right brand.
MS doesn't really give a fuck if some masochist geek installs starter on a higher powered machine though. This is about what the big OEMs that use bios locked copies of windows and follow the rules because they are big enough that breaking the rules would be an unacceptable risk.
Just like now you can't buy an XP home netbook from the manufacturer with more than 1GB of ram but there is nothing technical (and I don't think anything legal either though IANAL) stopping you ripping out the 1GB stick and dropping in a 2GB or on some models even a 4GB one.
They don't have to. This is the OEM pricing contract for each specific computer model. The manufacturer provides the model specs and has to sign off that it is truthful. If Microsoft later finds the model did not meet specs (by someone that works for Microsoft buying one and testing it, some day) then Microsoft comes back to the manufacturer and demands payment for the pricing difference multiplied by the number of models sold.
You might not be able to buy a standalone full install copy of Starter Edition
MS has no right to decide which part of their operating system I am "permitted" to use
Why not? As you say, it's their operating system, not yours. If you only pay $15 for a cut-down version of the OS, why do you think you're entitled to more than you paid for?
MS don't care about solving the world's energy crisis. They're simply doing a deal with Intel to keep the status quo.
Via's Nano is a potential competitor for the Atom platform in netbooks. However its TDP clocks in at 17 watts at 1.6GHz, and 25 watts for the 1.8GHz version. So for Via to compete with Intel in this market, they have to under-clock their CPUs, which naturally sacrifices performance - making Atom competitive in benchmarks.
The other limitation in Intel's favour is the single-core requirement, which cements the N270/N280 as the dominant CPU. x86 vendors such as nVidia & AMD won't bother with this market segment when they have multi-core designs on the table. Hence Intel doesn't cannibalize sales of Nehalem CPUs.
The Wintel cartel is alive and well. Let's hope low-cost Linux netbooks with multiple core ARM and MIPS chips will erode their market at this price range; forcing MS and Intel to compete on a level playing field.
Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see a whole lot of netbooks selling with the starter edition in the developed markets.
Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
On the bright side, when installing Linux on those machines we'll waste much less money on the "Microsoft tax".
Windows users may not be getting a great deal though.
Parent
Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score:5, Informative)
Ed Bott did a bunch of research on what the Windows 7 three application limit really means:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844 [zdnet.com]
In short, he says that: ...
- Windows Explorer, Command Prompt, Task Manager, Control Panel applets, other Windows system tools don't count
- Many applications that run as system services and present themselves through the notification area (aka system tray) don't count (anti-virus, firewall, little utilities, etc)
- The version he tested doesn't exempt installers, but Microsoft said that they should be
- Internet Explorer is NOT exempt, but there is no limit on the number of tabs you can open
- If you don't like the three-app limit, there is a built-in way in Windows to upgrade to a higher edition that doesn't have the limitation. You don't have to reinstall Windows or lose your data or anything; it's just an online purchase and a change of product key, and the upgraded features are unlocked with a reboot
So it's not like you're screwed if your computer came with Starter and you need more. But if you don't need more, hey, you just saved some money....
Parent
Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Microsoft has imposed an artificial limitation that was not previously present
On their product, that they sell. I understand the frustration, but not the sense of entitlement.
We have other options, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot my favorite-I'm a PC and I come in 7 different flavors of Windows 7. Guess wrong and you will have to go and buy another version or upgrade. Which is the right version for you? How should I know? Think of it as an adventure!
/Mac just looks at him funny/ Okay......uhhhh....that is just really REALLY dumb. I don't even want to be compared to something that stupid. Why would you even WANT to come in seven versions, anyway?
/PC looks at Mac shocked/ To maximize my IP profit potential, of course!
Mac...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It grieves me immensely to say this, but nothing Microsoft does will stop netbooks from shipping with Windows installed. No amount of self-inflicted sabotage can compensate for the irrational loss aversion [wikipedia.org] that characterises most computer users. They just don't feel they can afford to be without Wind
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For those of us who remember, multi-tasking (after a fashion) was made possible on Windows 3.1 via the TSR - Terminate-and-Stay-Resident programs that left a stub, inert but still in RAM - that allowed a limited task-switching capability.
TSR was not a way to have multi-tasking on Windows 3.1; TSR was a way to have pseudo-multi-tasking in DOS before Windows [and other multi-tasking environments such as DESQ(view)] came by. In fact, most TSR apps would NOT work in Windows.
Of course, TSR-multitasking was not really multitasking, since the TSR was not really 'running' at the same time as whatever you were running under DOS. Multitasking was offered by Windows (which before version 3.0 did not offer 'real' multitasking either). or by other pro
A note to net.libertarians (Score:4, Insightful)
This is proof that corporations that arise from your beloved "market" can be every bit as evil and draconian as the government.
And don't even give me that B.S. that monopolies wouldn't arise if there was less government intervention in markets, Stadard oil arising when there was NO government intervention in markets ring a bell? In short Ayn Rand fans time to find another paradigm that maps the real world.
A smart person questions BOTH concentrated public and private power which is why I hope OSS wins in the long run as it's inherently decentralized and avoids BOTH public and private monopolies on production that lead to debacles like this on private side and debacles like the "v-chip" on the public side.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't use the excuse that this shouldn't be done on a netbook, because it'll only show how long it's been since you've visited a university classroom.
When I taught, I didn't let students use computers in my classroom, and I wouldn't now. But I won't use that excuse: I will use the excuse that you appear to have mixed up the words "would" and "wouldn't" in my previous post, and thus have made an argument that completely agrees with me. Thanks. I appreciate it. You make some very good points. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uuuuhhhhh....sorry, but that was XP and Vista starter. Those folks will now be getting Win7 Basic. They have already stated that Win7 Starter WILL [pcworld.com] get sold on Netbooks in the good old US of A. And as I said, that is just to start. I can easily see a scenario where MSFT prices Win7 sooooo cheap that pretty much all the desktops and laptops that get Vista Basic or XP Home now end up with Starter. Then MSFT can "maximize their IP" by trying to push upgrades on all those poor saps that got boned.
Remember one of
Hence, Microsoft hired Marc Tremblay. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [itwire.com]. 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.
Parent
Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The words "mostly", "web", and "etc." (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not all computers are x86 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
bar set pretty high (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bar set pretty high (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [astrodigital.org])
Parent
Re:bar set pretty high - BS (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That's utter bs. If you bother to check wikipedia [wikipedia.org], you'll find out that diameter of the boosters are 12.17 ft. That's not us standard gauge by any means. Plus, if you think about it, NASA doesn't have any issues shipping the main fuel tank assembly to florida.
Parent
Re:bar set pretty high (Score:5, Funny)
So even though we could've designed a better Space Shuttle, because of the limitation of Roman war chariots, the boosters are not optimal.
Damn those Romans and their lack of foresight!
Parent
That's bass ackwards (Score:5, Insightful)
windows 7? (Score:3, Insightful)
most of the netbook still have options that use some flavor of linux as OS, so who cares if it runs Windows 7 or not? Personally I don't want my netbook running Windows 7 or even XP because it's not designed for it (consuming too much resource).
This would be great for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Oh no ... (Score:4, Funny)
That means my new 2.2 GHz netbook with 128 GB SSD and 10.25 inch screen that dissipates 16 watts is going to run that Linux stuff.
Don't get your nappies in a wad, Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux runs on just about anything, these days, and if it doesn't, NetBSD does.
Get an ipod that can run IPodLinux [ipodlinux.org], plug in one of these [thinkgeek.com], and a pair of these [i-glassesstore.com], and you'll be ready to dodge bullets. ;-)
With the above, they can sell as many of their crippled, gimped notebooks as they want; you can use that stuff and the hacked ipod to create your own system. If you don't mind the weight, there's still this [lifehacker.com] old trick, too.
Microsoft can do whatever they want. All we need to do is route around them.
Stop being afraid of them; they have no power. We can do whatever we like, and there is nothing they can do about it...for the simple reason that there are so many more of us. Microsoft are only one company.
Competition.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lucrative Netbook Market? (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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:Lucrative Netbook Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
The lowering of the bar (Score:5, Insightful)
.
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."
Re:The lowering of the bar (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Microsoft Must Die (Score:3, Insightful)
And cloud computing could make that happen because it should make the client OS irrelevant. We don't have to do anything "to" Microsoft. Just build world-class productivity apps that use open standards and run in the cloud. This forces Microsoft to compete on a more level playing field as it can no longer leverage its OS hegemony because Firefox on Linux works exactly like Firefox on Windows XP/Vista/7.
Google Docs is one potential Microsoft killer. Unfortunately, Google Docs is _still_ in beta (after how many years? -- if we count Writely, and I think we should) and you'd better believe it's "beta" because its still feature poor (which is more an "alpha" characteristic) and buggy (I just lost a document I was working on last night). OK, Windows users will be used to that behvior, but that's not the point. Google, perhaps the most of all the major cloud computing vendors (e.g., Amazon, Yahoo!), has the best chance to finally put Microsoft in its place by making the OS irrelevant.
And, that's how you kill Microsoft.
So, what's the problem, Google? Why aren't you throwing everything you have at making Google Docs a world-class, cloud-based productivity application suite? Or, at least, making it a priority project (which, at present, it obviously is not)? As it currently stands, the Google Docs mini-suite is a good start, but its apps are not yet good enough to get hardcore users of Microsoft productivity apps to switch. Until that happens, Microsoft is going to continue to attempt to control the "cloud threat" using its Windows OS. When netbooks can access powerful applications in the non-Microsoft cloud, it won't matter (for a large portion of the netbook owners/buyers) what OS is running on their cloud client. And, that is Microsoft's worst nightmare.
In closing, I would be remiss to not point out that the cloud already is helping make Microsoft's OS-enforced "app limit" irrelevant. Firefox only counts as one OS application. But, Google Docs is actually three applications (writer, spreadsheet, presentation tool). So the "three app" limit is relatively easy to get around when you're working in the cloud.
When cloud-based apps get good enough and the other cost-reducing advantages (especially to business owners) of cloud computing are considered, there will be no rational reason why Microsoft doesn't become "just another cloud computing vendor."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...And cloud computing could make that happen because it should make the client OS irrelevant....
This might be true for those who have a VERY fast Internet connection. If everybody's Internet connection were as fast as the average hard disk access and at least as reliable, universal network computing, as you describe it will still not kill Microsoft. Even if I had such a connection, I would not trust some outside company to house all my data, ready to give it at the drop of a hat to every Tom Dick and Harry
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
from light blue all the way to dark blue....
Re:lacking info (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:lacking info (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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?
Parent
Re:lacking info (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:lacking info (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 supp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem has become that there is simply nothing left to improve in a typical OS for the vast majority of users.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:lacking info (Score:5, Informative)
Please god, stop the madness. Starter edition is an edition that they plan to sell for next to nothing to developing (read: third world) nations in order to provide the same kernel and ability as the rest of the business world (ideally to increase their participation in the market and get them out of the "developing nation" category by fostering growth of the IT sector and all the dependencies it places upon an economy.)
Starter Edition is not Netbook Edition. There is no Netbook Edition. I repeat: There Is No Netbook Edition of 7.
Here are the editions of Windows 7, from least capability to highest, and each successive entry is a superset of the previous one's capabilities:
Windows 7 Starter: OEM distribution to "developing markets" only. We're talking third world here. China? No. India? No. A lot of African nations apply. Sold for dirt cheap.
Windows 7 Home Basic: Retail distribution to "emerging markets." Like China, India, Taiwan to a lesser extent, basically not fully developed nations that are economically growing.
Windows 7 Home Premium: This is what your netbook will have if you buy it yourself.
Windows 7 Business: This is what your netbook will have if you bought it from the "Small Business" section of the online retailer.
Windows 7 Ultimate: This is medium sized businesses and developers will likely use. Basically a one-off type license of the following edition.
Windows 7 Enterprise: This is for volume license agreements only, and is identical to Ultimate.
If you're reading Slashdot, chances are, you won't be able to buy Starter edition anywhere. In fact, I'd like to see you get a price on it. From anyone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that few people in the developing world will really be interested in being limited like that. Its only a matter of time before they all run Enterprise. And yes, I live in Africa.
The reason I can't give you a price for "Starter" is there is absolutely no market for it here. Dirt cheap is meaningless compared to free. On top of that a lot will stick with malware target number 1 (XP) because it runs fairly well on low spec machines (think P2-P3).
Then there are the few that have gone or are going the lin
Re: (Score:3)
There's no doubt in anyone's mind that there's a lot of software written for the Windows API that businesses starting in developing nations would like to use. Or at least, it would be an extraordinary claim to say that there is no market.
History says you're wrong. History says, Microsoft put out an XP starter edition, they put out a Vista starter edition, and for whatever reason, they're continuing with a 7 starter edition.
And yes, it is a matter of time before they all run enterprise or switch to Linux. It
Windows Vista != Windows 7 (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously /., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
Was, past tense. Between Windows Vista and Windows 7, Microsoft swapped the roles of Starter Edition and Home Basic. In Windows Vista, Starter Edition was for the third world and Home Basic was for entry-level hardware in the industrialized world. But in Windows 7, Home Basic is for the third world and Starter Edition is for low-cost subnotebook PCs.
Re:Starter Edition is for 3rd World Countries (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously /., you can't even buy starter edition in the US or most technologically-capable countries. It's for underdeveloped countries. It's been this way for years now, it was like this for Vista also.
And, from TFA:
Windows 7 Starter Edition, unlike XP Starter Edition, will be for sale to users in both developing and developed nations.
That's why /. is called News for Nerds, Stuff that matters. When something that was one way is now another, many people call that news.
In the time you've taken to call /. dumb, you could have RTFA and learned also:
Specifically, according to TechARP's information, Microsoft's maximum specs for machines it will consider to be netbooks/"small notebooks" will change in the following ways:
Screen size: With XP and Vista, maximum allowable screen size was 12.1 inches; with Windows 7, it will be 10.2 inches
Storage: Maximum limits for XP and Vista: 160 GB HDD or 32 GB SDD; with Windows 7, it will be 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SDD
Graphics: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks was "less than or equal to DX9; with Windows 7, there will be no limitation
CPUs: With XP and Vista, netbooks/small notebooks had to have "single core processors that do not exceed 1 GHz frequency, or Intel Atom (N270, N280, 230, Z500, Z510, Z515, Z520, Z530, Z540, Z550); Intel Celeron 220; AMD (MV-40, 1050P, TF-20, Geode LX, Athlon 2650e, Sempron 210U); VIA (C7-M ULV, Nano U1700, U2250, U2300, U2400 or U2500). With Windows 7, the maximum will be "single core processors that do not exceed 2 GHz frequency, and have a CPU thermal design power that is less than or equal to 15 W, not including the graphics and chipset."
Parent
Re:And how do they go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't I just go and install Starter Edition on my Pentium D?
Oh i'm sure you will be able to install it if you get your hands on a non-vendor specific copy or a vendor specific copy of the right brand.
MS doesn't really give a fuck if some masochist geek installs starter on a higher powered machine though. This is about what the big OEMs that use bios locked copies of windows and follow the rules because they are big enough that breaking the rules would be an unacceptable risk.
Just like now you can't buy an XP home netbook from the manufacturer with more than 1GB of ram but there is nothing technical (and I don't think anything legal either though IANAL) stopping you ripping out the 1GB stick and dropping in a 2GB or on some models even a 4GB one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't have to. This is the OEM pricing contract for each specific computer model. The manufacturer provides the model specs and has to sign off that it is truthful. If Microsoft later finds the model did not meet specs (by someone that works for Microsoft buying one and testing it, some day) then Microsoft comes back to the manufacturer and demands payment for the pricing difference multiplied by the number of models sold.
You might not be able to buy a standalone full install copy of Starter Edition
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS has no right to decide which part of their operating system I am "permitted" to use
Why not? As you say, it's their operating system, not yours. If you only pay $15 for a cut-down version of the OS, why do you think you're entitled to more than you paid for?
Re:"new" focus on power efficiency? (Score:4, Informative)
MS don't care about solving the world's energy crisis. They're simply doing a deal with Intel to keep the status quo.
Via's Nano is a potential competitor for the Atom platform in netbooks. However its TDP clocks in at 17 watts at 1.6GHz, and 25 watts for the 1.8GHz version. So for Via to compete with Intel in this market, they have to under-clock their CPUs, which naturally sacrifices performance - making Atom competitive in benchmarks.
The other limitation in Intel's favour is the single-core requirement, which cements the N270/N280 as the dominant CPU. x86 vendors such as nVidia & AMD won't bother with this market segment when they have multi-core designs on the table. Hence Intel doesn't cannibalize sales of Nehalem CPUs.
The Wintel cartel is alive and well. Let's hope low-cost Linux netbooks with multiple core ARM and MIPS chips will erode their market at this price range; forcing MS and Intel to compete on a level playing field.
Parent