OEMs, partners can’t brand Windows 7 Starter either

Why would we want OEMs adding their bloated crapware onto starter systems. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by Microsoft, especially since Starter is going to be sold for practically nothing.

Between this and the varying start menus, I am starting to agree with those people that have been exaggerating about the confusion in Windows SKUs for a few years now. Choice is one thing, and it is a good thing, but this is just getting stupid. --tayme

I'm going OT here, but I don't think Paul will mind: I'm posting this from a new install of the Windows 7 RC. Just build 7100. An old machine, but so far so good. It wouldn't recognize my video card and I had to jump through hoops to make that work, but it's OK now, and now I'm online. Once I get the software I use regularly setup, I'm going through Pauls review and some other links I bookmarked to see if I can get into some of the deeper stuff of the OS...

@RobertC "Why would we want OEMs adding their bloated crapware onto starter systems. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by Microsoft" Why is that a reasonable thing for Microsoft to do? What on earth does wallpaper choice have to do with bloatware? Nothing. All it does is result in a limited experience for netbook users.

Why Microsoft, Why? Because they can.

Not that I support Microsoft in doing this, but it makes sense. Starter edition is actually lower cost because Microsoft sells it for lower cost, not because OEMs payed part of the price for their customers. So it's not same as mobile phones and their customizations.. By that logic, if Microsoft gave you something with a huge discount, ofcourse they DO NOT want to see a logo of some other company on their desktop. Sure, it's dumb that users can't change it later on, but this deal of no-OEM customization is logical at least... well, at least it's logical to me :)

Now it makes sense for applications, windows and even browsers to have a full-screen option.

"Because Microsoft is lame. Answered." Apple and their fanboys are even lamer. Can you provide some better & more interesting answers?

Does all this really really matter? Some of you protest far too much. The solution is really simple: when purchasing a Netbook, pay for a higher-spec version of Windows (like Home Basic or Home Premium) to go on your Netbook. You'll have to pay more, but you get the features you want. You want more features, you pay more money. No one is being limited here whatsoever.

"Times like this I'm glad I stopped trusting them." Then who should we trust? Apple? Google? or maybe open source?

Why? Because it is their product. Since any version of Windows 7 will run on what are essentially small, low cost/powered notebooks, and easy in-place upgrades to premium versions of the operating system are available, the company has elected to limit available personalization options on their lowest end version of the product to encourage upgrades later on. It is somewhat like how automobile manufacturers offer various trim levels within the same model line - only better, since the buyer can move up to a higher trim level without buying a new car. Also, the notion that simply because a 'netbook' sells for 200 to 300 dollars that it should come with an operating system included and priced based upon some percentage of that price is preposterous. You don't see RHN selling yearly support contracts for less simply because the server the contract supports has four GB of RAM instead of 2 and you don't see calls for Apple to sell a notebook for 300 dollars simply because someone else does and likewise, a copy of Adobe CS4 does not sell for 100 dollars vice 400 because it is installed on a computer with a Core 2 instead of an i7 based CPU. The insistence that Microsoft sell its products for an arbitrarily fixed price you decide is "fair" is daffy. Try this, don't buy it and if enough people agree, Microsoft will adjust its pricing.... or buy the entry level model and upgrade when you can afford to, or want to access more features. Rule 2 in business: "Respect your pricing - if you do not, no one else will either."

At least it's better than seeing an annoying "Verizon" or "AT&T" logo. This will probably not bother me, since I barely look at my desktop(I usually have a browser open, or a photo program). But still... why, Microsoft, can't we change our wallpapers?!?!

I really don't understand why most of you and Paul have such a problem with this. If you want the cheap price, you lose the features. If changing the background is THAT important to you, step up, pay up and shut up. Are you really saying that you would be totally happy with Starter if you could change the background? Really? None of the other limitations matter to you? Let's be honest here, most of you will opt for Premium just for Aero/Glass. This is a non-issue. Get over it. Sorry if I sound a little bent about this, but come on, look at how much digital ink has been wasted over this. Stupid.

"So... Why? This news makes the remaining bizarre Windows 7 Starter limitation even more bizarre. Why Microsoft? Why?" To encourage people to use a different product? I've agreed with Paul over the years that the "year of the Linux desktop" always seems to be a year away, but you know, given the limited functionality of netbooks, it's the one niche where it makes sense because of economics. If Microsoft doesn't wake up to that, that is exactly where they'll drive the market.

This reminds me of a person that want a basic cable price, but expects expanded basic channels. These are bare-bones, low cost machines that are not going to give you a premium experience. Whomever was stupid enough to think this, please raise you hand. This version of the OS, form what I read, isnt even going to be sold in most of the developed world. And on top of that, most mainstream netbook makers aren't even going to be using this to begin with. So what exactly is the problem, that we pampered westerners are having with this? If you want to change the d@mn wallpaper so badly or monkey around with the start menu, then go D/L DSL or Puppy Linux and go to town.

Also, I'd bet a lot that there will a hack to change the wallpaper. The silliness in this is that Paul had some posting that Microsoft has ENCRYPTED the wallpaper file! Apple today disabled previous "hidden" features in Safari 4, ATT can't figure out MMS and Tethering....they must all be drinking the same stupid punch.

pmcgrath, who said you can't get a OEM licence of (Home) Premium on a netbook? Microsoft have several editions of Windows, priced accordingly and have already said that any version of Windows will work with any netbooks. it's up to the OEMs to choose which of those they want for their notebooks. If they don't, take it up with them.

"your average Windows edition costs into the hundred(s)." Depends on the OEM and the volume contract that they get. System Builder pricing costs about $100US for [Vista] Home Premium, but it's because the media, documentation, and COA's are already made up for them. They're also buying through "the channel" (distribution channel) rather than buying licensing directly from Microsoft, so there's extra markup that they're paying for. Royalty OEM's have to make their own packaging and pay for it out of their own pocket, but with their volume, it probably doesn't cost them hardly anything, and their software licencing fees are MUCH less than what System Builders pay.

Wallpaper _is_ only cosmetic, but your average user likes it. And they won't know the limitation exists, so when they can't change the background, it'll upset them. Again, the feature has existed for ages, and, it exists in Windows XP. Maybe Home Premium will be cheap enough to use as the default. But still, they should just remove that limitation. It makes them look bad. Sorry for the earlier rant too.

"The *rough* equivalent is Home Basic/Professional for Windows 7." ? What do you mean by "Professional"? Also, there is no real equivalent in Windows 7. Windows XP Home Edition doesn't have Windows Media Center. Windows Vista/7 Home Premium have it so although it's now the mainstream SKU, it's not an accurate comparison. Home Basic could be called the closest SKU, as far as parity for features, but starting with Windows 7, you won't see Home Basic unless you're in a developing country. Upgrading a netbook from Windows XP Home Edition to Windows 7 Home Premium will give you a lot of extra features. If netbooks sold with Windows XP Media Center Edition, you'd have a closer comparison. 7 Professional is kind of like the cheaper, but newer version of Vista Ultimate, in that you have a superset of features of Home Premium. You can't really blame Microsoft for altering feature sets from Windows version to Windows version. Feature sets are hard to balance out. It's kind of like how TV providers try to provide you with channel groups that fit to appease existing customers, while trying to squeeze in more channels without making it look like they're totally changing everything, or making it look like you're paying more for extra stuff you don't want. Sometimes they have to do that to get people interested in the new channels though. I'd bet there are a lot of people that probably wouldn't have tried Media Center (but are thankful now that they did), were it not for Microsoft pushing Vista Home Premium as the standard SKU for consumers. Sometimes pushing all of the premium features as a complete set and relegating common features as a low-end baseline is good marketing. I can confidently say without needing proof that the vast majority of users would rather take Vista Home Premium as a whole, rather than settle for Vista Home Basic. Call it bundling or whatever, but it's still a good way to lure customers to the premium product. Vista Home Basic might be okay (I don't think it's "bad" in any way), but are there very many people that you know that would settle for it over Home Premium?