Microsoft hoping gimped Windows 7 Starter on netbooks will drive upgrades, revenue
By Tim Stevens 
posted March 10th 2009 8:19AM
posted March 10th 2009 8:19AM
[Thanks, Dilan]
posted March 10th 2009 8:19AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'm on MS's side. This is more for the OEMs and market share than to annoy consumers.
They are trying to offer a cheaper version of windows to OEMs to compete with free Linux on netbooks.
Judging by conversations yesterday I'd say more people will start moving to Linux.
I had two people ask me about Linux, one for a netbook the other for a full-sized laptop, they both made some statement about being tired of dealing with Windows.
Sure because that reflects the current trend in which MS have secured 80% of the market from a starting position of 0%.
Perhaps I should have added more detail.
Neither of these people are the type of folks who read Engadget or any other techy type site, they just use computers for everyday work and are getting tired of MS.
I think if MS wants to limit people to only three programs running on a Netbook people aren't going to upgrade they'll switch to Linux as a result based on comments like this and the "Starter" edition of Windows 7 isn't out yet.
No, what they'll do is upgrade to Home Premium.
Sad but true.
Microsoft selling Winsdows 7 Starter that can only run 3 apps? Get lost! I have been experimenting with different OS's using VM Virtualbox. gOS and Ubuntu or Xubuntu would be a much better choice for netbooks than that piece of cr@p.
I have also tried Windows 7 once so far giving it 1GB memory and 10GB hard drive space, and it seems quite good, although I have much more testing to do. I was particularly impressed with internet explorer, which was much much faster than it is in Vista or XP, where it so slow that I use better browsers like Opera and Chrome.
IMO Microsoft should give all people with their useless Vista (myself included, though I could take it no longer and run XP) a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate when it comes out, as a big sorry for ruining users pc experience.
Major fail. By doing this MS pretty much guarantees that netbooks will use Linux. Let's see - light weight, easy to customize, easy to add some brand identity, oh and free! And when pre-installed and setup properly, as far as user is concerned it won't be much different at all.
I've been running the 7 beta on my MSI Wind (2 GB Ram) since it came out with no issues, runs great.
Microsoft never liked netbooks.
They only provided a cheap version of XP as a fast and somewhat desperate attempt to stop Linux from gaining a foot hold. They described the netbook as the 'third PC' (after your desktop, and laptop), not as something that was supposed to replace your laptop.
Now that they've had enough time to come up with a sustainable game plan for netbooks, expect the Windows versions to become less attractive for the consumer.
I doubt that Microsoft 'never liked' netbooks - as a software company you'd have to be absolutely stupid to 'not like' a segment of the market that grew 50-fold in 2008. They may have been skeptical about whether netbooks would really take hold, but I can't imagine they were holding their nose as they took in additional, badly needed revenue from selling more copies of XP. That's the only thing they have to sell netbook users...that's their real problem.
If Microsoft hated netbooks they wouldn't be aiming several versions of Windows 7 at netbooks.
Apple marketers ruining the world spreading stupidity and encouraging ignorance.
Microsoft marketers shooting themselves in the foot.
Hear hear, voted up.
Think it'll run on an ARM processor? I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Hmm, everybody seems to love the idea of Android on Netbooks, but hates the idea of Windows 7 Starter edition?
I know which one I would rather run on a Netbook, the one with a window manager.
OS X will probably be able to run a lot more than that on Apple's Netbook. This idea will cause Microsoft to lose this market for sure and probably allow Apple to come in and dominate it. I am not so sure this move by Microsoft will work.
Oh, so Apple has a netbook now?
"MS believes users will get quickly frustrated and then pony up extra cash to move to Home Basic or Home Premium. "
Wow, do you know the difference between conjecture by a reporter and a statement from a corporation? You took the reporter's *opinion* and twisted them just a little bit more to make Microsoft look like the big evil corporation. Good show!
Show me a statement somewhere from Microsoft that their plan is to 'frustrate' their users. It may still happen, but I doubt that is ever their plan.
Software use is based on the concept of licensing. You pay X amount to use a piece of software in a certain way. Microsoft is far from the only company to offer different levels of products based on the need of the consumer. Personally I like to have the choice of what I pay for. I don't use Media Center, but I need Remote Desktop. I don't have to pay for both.
While I typically have many things going on at once, not everyone works that way. Lots of people may be just fine with only two or three apps open at once. I know plenty of people who *shouldn't* have more than 3 open at a time :P
What did everyone think was going to happen when courts started telling MS they they could not bundle XYZ software together because they were a monopoly and it was anti competitive?
Well, now its all separate and the consumer gets the option of buying (X) or (X+Y) or (X+Y+Z). MS is bringing the choice to the consumer. Therefore its competitors can no longer bitch about it. I think its rather clever. And confusing so when in doubt buy the whole enchilada.
The only way Starter even comes close to making sense is if MS offers it for free. Then they have a free OS shipping on netbooks that can compete with the free-ness of Linux. are they comparable in what they offer? No, but this gives ppl comfortable with XP the opportunity to try out Starter and upgrade if they like it.
To pay for a gimped OS strikes me as the opposite of a good business model.
OK - they are not forcing oems to use starter for netbooks. This is an option in order to compete with free Linux. For the majority of people I know that use netbooks they never really use anything other than internet explorer, word and a media player, that is it (maybe excel). so for them a cheaper netbook with this limitation has no effect other than them saving money.
What you have said shows the fustration of 2 people - if that is a trend in your eyes the wow.
I wonder how they want to get around "here's our OS that only runs 3 apps at once and costs money, so it's obviously better than that free one that has no such silly limitations."
This is a very badly written article.
Microsoft havent stated what so ever that they intend to offer Starter on Netbooks.
The reporter has simply taken the OS meant for third world countries and twisted it, making it seem like this is a contender for Netbooks, which is HIGHLY unlikely.
This Engagdet editor has gone once step further and has made everyone believe this is what will be shipping full stop.
Very very poor article Engadget.
As a side note, its funny how everyone loads the praise on Win7 when its base is Vista, the OS which is cool to hate.
Get a life Adderz, criticizing Engadget!!!
The article is comfirmed here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Microsoft+Cripples+Windows+7+Starter+Edition+in+Hopes+of+Netbook+Upgrades/article14532.htm
Read it!
What the hell Wes
That link is basically the same article on a different website.
It doesnt "confirm" anything. All it "confirms" is Windows Starter exists. On Netbooks? Not likely.
Windows 7 Starter -- yes, we even charge for the demo versions.
Only Microsoft would use "frustrating users" as a business strategy. Let's force people to upgrade my making lower end products intentionally crappier, instead of inspiring upgrades by making better products more awesome. They're not the only ones to use the former strategy, but they're up against companies who use the latter.
Though I'm a big fan of Win7, this Starter Edition is a load of crap. My sincere hope is that, like Vista Home Basic before it, OEMs will (almost) totally ignore it. They have to know that no one wants this.
It's going to come down to pricing. Microsoft may give Starter away to netbook OEMs for $10, and demand $75 for Home Premium. On a $250 system, it's going to be hard to find room for a $75 OS. Hopefully, enough of the OEMs will push back and demand that, on low-spec systems, they get Home Premium for $50 (or less).
I think Microsoft will have to drop the price. It's a pretty pivotal time for them, and if they can't serve the low-cost market, they actually might start losing share to Linux. For real this time. That's the last thing that Microsoft wants.
I'm a Windows power-user and, as mentioned, a big fan of Windows 7. I'll definitely pay $100 to upgrade my main system when Windows 7 launches. However, I definitely WON'T pay $100 to put Windows 7 on my netbook. Though it's running the Win7 beta right now, and I greatly prefer it, XP is capable of handling all the tasks that I actually need to do on my netbook. I really don't know what Microsoft can do in this situation to squeeze profit out of the high-end and serve the low-end just as well.
I tend agree with Engadget on this matter.
Considering the US consumer market only (as to rule out the necessary server and corporate versions), we had:
1 version of Windows 95
1 version of Windows 98
1 version of Windows 98 SE
1 version of Windows ME
1 version of Windows XP (home)
3 versions of Windows Vista
And now, likely to be at least 3 versions of Windows 7
This trend does confuse the user. A lot of people commenting on this post are power users, and don't really understand that the less computer literate have difficulty understanding the differences between the versions.
The majority of other major operating systems have only one consumer version that includes all of the operating systems' features. Beyond that, Add/Remove Programs should be all we need.
If upgrades from starter to a less-crippled version of windows were only $10-$20 dollars, then that might be an acceptable tradeoff.
If the upgrades cost more than that - ($75?) then that seems way too high considering the cost of netbook hardware to begin with.
Also, has anyone tried the Win 7 beta & installed the starter version?
I wonder if things running in the "system tray" count as one of the 3 open applications. Stuff that's always on in the background (like an anti-virus) or Steam (not that I expect to do much gaming on a netbook...maybe the original Half-life) or some of the special printer software that gets installed when you install a printer driver (I'm looking at you, HP) could quickly chew up any open software slots with a quickness.
This makes sense, although definitely not consumer friendly. I have eeePC 1000H and Dell Mini 9, both run Windows 7 Ultimate beta just fine, so no need for the crippled starter edition. Poor decision by Microsoft.
Starter? Only 3 Simultaneous apps at a time? What the hell is that all about. This is a terrible idea and while I don't know if it would make me switch to linux it would definitely make me either try to pirate a real version of windows 7 or head on back to XP.
"MS believes users will get quickly frustrated and then pony up extra cash"
or move to a free OS that doesnt frustrate you on purpose
Ok, I am sold. I still have no desire to get a netbook. Back to my laptops.
Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft....
You guys truly don't see it. You're just giving Linux and Apple more power. With as much firepower as Microsoft has, I can only TRULY allow myself to believe that their do this stuff intentionally. Microsoft must not want to be on top or in business anymore. They really aren't offering the slightest amount of intelligence in any other their current decisions.
Oh, so Apple has a netbook now?
So that's their business strategy? annoy your customers into paying for an upgrade? riiiight... that'll end well...
And how exactly are netbook users supposed to upgrade sans CD drive?
@chance
No, what you are saying is actually less realistic. I bought a netbook because it was a cheap laptop that I could use while in class at uni. It was alot smaller and lighter then a normal laptop and while I would have loved a mac air, i cant afford it so i bought a netbook. I run atleast rooughly 4-6 programs at a time while at class. Web browser, word, solitare/freecell, msn normally in class, then add itunes, possibly a torrent program, excel if working on an assignment, and then dont forget that there are always programs that run in the background only like antivirus, or is M$ going to distinguish between them and othe programs. I think they wont. Im a student, my mother who also bought one for when she traveled for work runs more then what I run. Then situation you are saying is wrong is actually a realistic situation. Netbooks are more powerful then you think. Just cause it doesnt have a 9800GTM and 4 gig of ram and a 2.6ghz quad core doesnt mean it doesnt get used for more then web browsing
I believe Balmer is the biggest advertisement for switching to Apple after they pull away from XP - I know I'm almost there, except XP is working so well and my two laptops just will not die...