Exclusive: Microsoft to remove 3 app limit from Windows 7 Starter

As a related FYI: MJ Foley has what she claims is the maximum specs for a computer allowed to run the netbook-only limited release of Windows 7 at http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2859 In short: Screen no larger than 10.2" Storage no larger than 250GB HDD or 64GB SSD Processoring no more than a single single-core processor no faster than 2GHz and with maximum thermal design power of no more than 15W There's more at her site including the appropriate disclaimers on the info and a much more detailed list.

This will be perfect for my Wind! Although it's running W7 Ultimate (7000) fine at the moment anyway. But nice and light-weight will be just perfect.

"Processoring no more than a single single-core processor no faster than 2GHz and with maximum thermal design power of no more than 15W" How does Windows differentiate between multi-threading (via HyperThreading) vs. multi-core? Similarly, how does it differentiate between multi-core and multi-CPU? Can it? Or is this just a soft licensing restriction?

Well, I don't know who came up with that very stupid decision to limit apps in Windows Starter edition, but I'm glad someone came to their senses. This kind of fundamentally flawed thinking only helps to fuel anti-Microsoft sentiment among hardcore Mac fans and hardcore Linux fans. With the right processors and memory, there's no need for an arbitrary limit in netbooks. As for the other limitations on Starter, those are also pretty lame brained. If anything Microsoft should be focusing on lowering the amount of processes running, improving memory allocation and minimizing the amount of memory used, and maximizing the CPU's abilities to do more with less Restricting hardware upgrading options is also pretty boneheaded. I can already see Apple making another Mac vs PC commercial ont his, and Microsoft would only have itself for it to blame. Remove these ridonkulous restrictions and take advantage of newer upgrades to maximize the upward potential of the OS. Once again, this is another example of me being highly critical of Microsoft. They do make some rather brain dead decisions at times. Microsoft needs to much better job of designing its OS with the future advances in mind. This foward thinking should extend to the PC Manufactuers that need to have much larger maximum memory expandability as part of that future foward thinking.

This is good news, but I'd still be extremely reluctant to buy this for my netbook, because I'd want Aero :-)

"With the right processors and memory, there's no need for an arbitrary limit in netbooks." With the right processor (anything Atom with a GMA 950), and memory (1-2GB), the arbitrary limit wouldn't be limited by using Windows 7 Home Premium. "Microsoft needs to much better job of designing its OS with the future advances in mind." I think they're trying to cover all bases with very low-end netbooks here. I wouldn't want a netbook with Windows 7 Starter, when all current [N-series Atom] netbooks can run Home Premium just fine with Aero turned on. Has anybody used Moblin 2.0 yet? It also limits the number of processes at a given time even though it's designed for more current netbooks. I'd like to see more of these "limited" OS's running on smaller MID devices. Instead, a lot of MID makers are using Linux versions that, well, still look like Linux. I'd want to see a pocketable device that ships with Windows 7 Starter or maybe Moblin 2.0. I like what Gigabyte has come up with - a device that looks like an OQO, but MUCH cheaper even if it is less powerful: http://www.giga-byte.com/Products/Notebook/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=... Moblin doesn't display properly on anything less than 1024x600 resolution. I'm guessing you could probably customize it to work though. Windows 7 wouldn't be a good fit though, since the processor is only 800MHz, and the SSD is only 4GB.

I can see the commercial already. PC is sitting at a desk with piles of computers and boxes of all the different versions of Windows. Mac asks him what he is doing. PC says he is trying to figure out which box goes with computer and if it will do what he needs to do. Mac then says "that looks pretty complicated". PC says "Really, what do you do? Mac holds up a box with Snow Leopard and says this can be installed on any Mac and will work the same on any Mac. PC just signs and puts his head down on the table.

Oh wait. The Apple lawyers just handle that if anybody sues for fraudulent advertising... No one is going to sue Apple for saying this. Unlike MS ads, which do mislead, everyone sees the Apple ads as entertainment. All the Apple ads did was cause me to look at the iMac and based on what I saw and the problems I was having with Vista I decided to switch. It was more about Vista than Apple.

That's like saying: "If Apple can make OS X work on common Intel hardware, why don't they just release it for all PC's?". It is my understanding that if you can't get Win 7 to run on your MSI Wind, you can get it to run OS 10

"Mac holds up a box with Snow Leopard and says this can be installed on any Mac and will work the same on any Mac." That is a blatantly false assumption you are making considering Snow leopard is only going to be available on Intel Macs and not the Power PC Macs. Even Leopard put some restrictions in place for older Macs. Most people buy PC's with Windows installed and don't even have disk for them. (Most OEM's now use recovery partitions instead of disk.)

Snow Leopard will be a much needed improvement to Leopard and will run on all 5 of their computers. All of them are over- priced, all of them have a lot of gotcha's. But if you're a Mac fanboi it won't matter. You happily overpay, and when a DVD gets stuck in the drive, you buy a new laptop. Need a faster hard drive in a Mini, you have to boot to an external drive. Get ready to bend over Mac boi's its coming. Power PC didn't work well on Leopard and not at all with Snow Leopard. (I know I tried)

Apple probably won't make OS X available the PC, because they would then have to make it compatible with existing hardware, and it would lessen demand for their premium hardware. Some enterprising hackers have coerced OS X to work on an ordinary PC, and I tried that once. But it was ineffective with no wireless, half the sound outputs missing, flaky sleep and other problems. Not ease of use at all.

@g6672D I've seen some hackintosh installations that were fully functional especially since they've been doing it for years now. There are now a one program installation program that fools OS-X to work. You just have to find the really good install programs. Or you can just get yourself a copy of VMware and a properly hacked version for VMware. Not that I have done it personally, but I have a few friends who have done it. There's no reason why Apple restricts OS-X except to have a monopoly on the hardware. If anything, Apple's business would explode 20 fold if they loosened its grip on the OS. However, I expect Microsoft to find a legal way to emulate OS-X in Windows and thus forcing Apple into the PC vs PC desktop battle. If anything, if I was Microsoft, I would definitely would goad Apple into a PC vs PC battle for the desktops. If Microsoft can prove that OS-X doesn't work as well on the PC, it could be a marketing battle that could be very effective.

Subzero, That is the most ridiculous post you've ever made. If you can't understand why....well, I guess that explains why you posted it in the first place. Which is unfortunate, because you are usually one of the only sane posters on the board.

Apple makes their money selling hardware. They have absolutely no motivation to license the OS to other companies. It would cost them in the long run. To the topic at hand, seems like a good idea to lift the 3 app limit, even if just for PR reasons. I think it was generally viewed as arbitrary and ill conceived.

"Apple probably won't make OS X available the PC, because they would then have to make it compatible with existing hardware, and it would lessen demand for their premium hardware." More importantly, they would then be faced with all the difficulties that Microsoft has in supporting hundreds of millions of PCs and untold numbers of peripherals.

"Oh and 3-4 stickers placed on the computer by a 3 year old." What's it feel like knowing you're the odd person out amonst your peers?

Pingback spam. But oh well, reply. subzero*: It was a while back, so no doubt it's gotten better. gorath/WebGuy3000/bettieblu: Pretty much that. On the 3-apps limitation, even if it's rare, it's ridiculous, and it's good they're removing it. They'd better do the same for the wallpaper.

@panache1023, I don't get your point. Apple has not coded OS-X properly for AMD processor's nor have they coded for the tremendous volume of hardware support on the PC side. They would find the can of worms that Microsoft tackles on a daily basis, and find themselves woefully unprepared. If you think the support forums on Apple's website has a lot of turnout, wait until they actually have to go head to head with Microsoft with both hardware and software support. Doesn't sound so ridiculous now does it? By locking themselves to a restricted hardware set, the amount of work needed to go toe to toe within the PC side would take Apple quite sometime, and be a great PR victory. If anyone in Microsoft had the brains to go through with such a bold attack strategy. It just seems like as soon as I'm critical of Apple, no matter how rational the criticism, I'm pounced on. Nobody gives a damn whether its feasable or even true. I'm labeled as anti-Apple or crazy. Sorry, I don't buy that at all. If you want to be critical of someone, fine. Explain yourself. If not, stay off the forum if you can't make a good point.

Do you guys really think that the limitation was such a big deal? Starter is for low end hardware and one most likely would not need to have more than a couple apps running, since most of these will probably on netbooks, and low end hardware won't be able to run high end apps requiring better hardware. IS this due to apps running in the background, because if not, most of us average users only run one to three apps at a time.

It ceases to amaze me how low Windows fans want to set the bar. They remove the 3 app limit and people are dancing in the streets and trying to nominate Ballmer for a Nobel prize.

Bttieblu, try turning Aero on. Contrary to popular belief / mass hysteria, if your hardware can do aero at all, it will actually result in better performance. But, as you say, it's performance is very near XP, and I have seen several instances of it being (feeling?) even faster, and also others where it felt (or was?) slightly slower. That in itself is no mean feat for an OS that is 8 years younger, if you see what I mean.

I dont think Aero is going to fix it. I have classic mode on and in the advanced settings I have "best performance" checked which turns off all gui effects, shadows, menu animation etc. The gui is very snappy with those settings and it uses 100meg less of RAM, bet its little pauses that are not there with XP and like Vista. I like 7 a lot and will actively promote it after its RTM when in meetings about the next desktop platform in our company.

"but also the many thousands of people have been testing it on such hardware." Many thousands testing 7 sure. Many thousands testing 7 on a single 1ghz core with 512 meg of ram and saying its faster than XP, not so much. Doing a quick google search on "Windows 7 on 512 meg of ram" these two links say it will run on 512, which I never doubted, but both say its slow, and even slower than XP. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=672 http://mintywhite.com/tech/windows-7/update-windows-seven-7-512mb-ram-un... Seriously would you reccomend to someone that had an older PC with 512megs of RAM and XP to upgrade to 7? I might if they were a light user and that recomendation would be to buy 2gigs of RAM from newegg with their OEM copy of 7 premium. If they did not want to spend a dime on hardware I would tell them not to bother.

So "waethorn" found himself a new avatar. Classy, "Wae". At least I won't need to read your posts to be reminded what a sick fukk you are."