Switched On: Windows 7, Non-Starter Edition

Ross Rubin (@rossrubin) contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.

Microsoft is making many well-received improvements in Windows 7, but may be in for a black eye on its Starter Edition because of growing misconceptions that it has optimized and recommended the limited Starter Edition for netbooks. For instance, the ad copy for the Apple commercial jabbing Starter Edition almost writes itself.

"Hello, I'm a Mac."
"And I'm a PC."
PC is trying to juggle.
"Hey, PC. What's with the juggling act?"
"It's my new operating system. See, it only lets me run three programs at a time so I need to stop doing one thing when I want to do another. Really keeps me on my toes thinking about which three programs I should use. Of course, I could upgrade to a more expensive version that gives me the capabilities I should have had from the beginning."
PC drops the balls.
"Hmm, really? Every Mac lets you run as many programs as you want out of the box."
"Well, that would be nice. I'd sure like to send someone an e-mail about that."
"That's a good idea, PC. Why don't you?"
"Because I had to quit my e-mail program to say that."
PC starts trying to juggle again. Cut to iMac with "Mac" desktop

One of the earliest demonstrations of Windows 7 had it running on a netbook, a hardware phenomenon that caught Microsoft squarely off-guard with the hardware requirements of Windows Vista. PC makers and consumers reacted by running to the familiar embrace of the tried, true and relatively lightweight Windows XP. That was a problem for Microsoft on a number of fronts, including reduced revenue and an inability to bring new strategic initiatives into the marketplace.

However, the alternative would have been even worse for Windows -- have PC manufacturers ship a laptop without Windows at all, and push them further down the road of creating their own front-ends for Linux. Asus started that phenomenon with the original Eee PC, and the practice has created mindshare for the (dubious for now) idea of Android on a netbook.

"There seems to be a growing misconception that Starter Edition is the the operating system Microsoft recommends for netbooks and that consumers must live with the limitations."

Windows 7 Starter Edition aims to address both the price and performance issues that caused Windows Vista to stumble when compared with its predecessor. The software's three-application limit clearly implies a sacrifice. It is not one that many netbook users may in fact encounter on a regular basis, particularly with more time increasingly being spent in the browser. Nonetheless, it's all but designed to be a limitation that sticks in the craw of customers.

Starter Edition will also improve performance compared to Windows Vista, with many tests on the unoptimized public beta showing that it meets or beats Windows XP at most tasks. (Performance tests on the first release candidate should be coming soon and should be even more promising.) However, there seems to be a growing misconception that Starter Edition is the operating system Microsoft recommends for netbooks (and nettops) and that consumers must live with the limitations to see the performance gains. Indeed, arriving at the conclusion that a cheap operating system would be tuned for cheap PCs is a reasonable jump.

However, this isn't so, according to Microsoft, which maintains that the core Windows 7 performance increases have been implemented at the kernel level and is recommending that manufacturers include Windows 7 Home Premium on netbooks. For U.S. consumers, much of this will likely be a moot point as there probably will be few netbooks shipped with this curtailed version of Windows 7. Retailers will be as loath to ship Windows 7 Starter Edition as they have been to ship Linux-based notebooks for fear of returns when consumers discover that it imposes artificial limitations, and most major manufacturers will act on the same answer.

With all that going for it, one wonders why Microsoft is even bothering. Is it much better to have a customer looking for a full Windows experience dissatisfied with Starter Edition than Linux? The answer is yes in at least narrow financial terms as Microsoft still collects payment for the weakened OS flavor and has the opportunity to upself the customer in the field. That upside, though, will bring with it high potential for misperception, frustration and ridicule for its willingness to sacrifice the customer experience.

---

Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.

[Brdystyls @ Apr 30th 2009 6:09PM]

I am a PC I was just born my name is Windows & and I am already out dated.

[CubeGuy @ Apr 30th 2009 6:59PM]

...

[EB @ Apr 30th 2009 7:01PM]

More like "Hi, I am an idiot and have absolutely no grasp on English grammar at all. I have never used punctuations and have never written a sentence composed of more than 5 words."

[Pedroion @ Apr 30th 2009 7:34PM]

You guys just made my day.
And I'm talking about the vowel-using guys.

[hk_fng @ Apr 30th 2009 8:29PM]

hahaha... I'm sure that the release of Windows 7 would be worst than the release of Vista. Why? Microsoft never learned from it's own mistake. The reason why people hate Vista is (1) it's expensive and (2) it always freezes. That is why people prefer Windows Xp or even some Windows 98 on that matter.

Mac, on the other hand, gaining it's advantage saying that our product never freezes and mind you, we are alot cheaper considering the expenses you pay for your IT guy or Computer person inorder to remove the virus and spyware that infect your PC monthly. We're all hassle free.

In this recession time, Microsoft is supposed to be advantageous than Mac. Why? Because people have no money even thought they wanted to upgrade their PC. That is why Linux and Google are taking advantage of the situation.

It should be noted also that Iphone overturns Windows Mobile. Why? Again, Microsoft never listen. Again, their product crashes all the time. It would be better to re-edit the Windows 3.11 Code, add some skins, edit the GUI and put it on Smartphone. I'm pretty sure that the processor of the current Smartphones are way better than Intel's 386 or 486 on that matter.

If I were to be the lead developer of Microsoft, I would re-edit the code of Windows 98, put some skins and add some features. The result? faster, cheaper and more efficient PC compare to Mac. Come to think of it, Windows 98 with skins running on Core 2 duo processor? Which do you think would be faster than Mac OS X 10.5?

[pcwolff @ Apr 30th 2009 8:44PM]

@hulahoophugs

Great example! I wish people could finally get that through their heads...but that'll never happen.

[Eric Leung @ Apr 30th 2009 11:17PM]

@hk_fng (or something)

Psst... Just for the record, no one uses Windows 98 anymore. Seriously. Don't make false claims. Those that are using Windows 98 are not using it out of a preference for it, but more so of a necessity.

[Alphathon @ May 1st 2009 5:49AM]

@hk_fng

Actually the reason most people hate Vista is that it's quite resource intensive. Also, just for the record, I have only had my Vista PC freeze maybe 10 times (all within the space of two weeks - the CPU fan was clogged with dust and was causing it to overheat). STFU you Mac fanboy.

[jimjobe @ May 1st 2009 10:03AM]

@hk_fng

I stopped reading at "would be worst than." I hope you didn't have anything important to say.

[murmermer @ May 1st 2009 5:44PM]

@Eric Leung

My place of employment (Convergys) still uses windows 2000 Professional on the management CPU's and windows 98 on the agents CPU's... because they are more stable than Vista! your full of garbage

[molecule-eye @ May 2nd 2009 7:22PM]

I like the use of an ampersand followed by an 'and'. Gives it that added oomph, & and all that.

[Jmoney according to george @ Apr 30th 2009 6:09PM]

Couldn't the PC just buy someone to juggle for him with the $1,000 he saved by buying a netbook instead of a macbook?

[Zak @ Apr 30th 2009 6:35PM]

Ah yes, because netbooks and Macbooks are competing in the same retail space.

Oh wait, no they aren't. Macbooks are not netbooks. Go figure.

[konshuss @ Apr 30th 2009 6:44PM]

That's because Macbooks are in their own retail space.. the Apple store. So I guess they're competing with themselves.

[Tom @ Apr 30th 2009 6:47PM]

@ Zak

No, but my sister recently bought a laptop with the exact specs of a macbook for 360 dollars after rebates. . . . .

[Timmy P. @ Apr 30th 2009 6:51PM]

Compeating space ehh, because you know that an iMac is not a computer and basic end users won't compare computers to other computers. That is assuming that a netbook is still a computer. We aren't trying to compare apples to oranges here.

[Stefan @ Apr 30th 2009 6:50PM]

@Tom

Link?

[Zak @ Apr 30th 2009 6:53PM]

konshuss - Yes, that's why Macs have 100% market share.

Tom - Let me guess, it has a shitty TN panel, smaller screen, less ram, slower processor, not made out of aluminum, but somehow it's "exactly the same".

[Jarek @ Apr 30th 2009 6:59PM]

Which Apple laptop exactly uses anything but a shitty TN screen?

[KK @ Apr 30th 2009 7:03PM]

Do Macbooks really have IPS or PVA panels? The spec sheet doesn't say one way or the other.

[Zak @ Apr 30th 2009 7:11PM]

All the Macbook Pros use IPS panels, and the Macbooks use LED backlighting, something I guarantee no $350 craptop will have. Did it not occur to you that there might be a reason the Macbook screens look better?

[KK @ Apr 30th 2009 7:23PM]

Just about every 10" netbook uses LED backlighting.

[hulahoophugs @ Apr 30th 2009 8:00PM]

people need to stop comparing price ranges of macs to pcs. apple simply doesn't make cheap computers. they aren't in that market.
the whole argument is exactly like saying Audi is a bad car company because it doesn't make a car for under 30,000 like Kia does.

[Brian @ Apr 30th 2009 7:55PM]

My Acer Aspire One has LED back lighting. They can be found for around $200, now.

I'm glad there's a "starter-edition" Windows 7. I'd rather buy my technophobe family members a slightly restricted Windows 7 machine that they'd use on a daily basis than a Linux machine (aka kit-computer) that they'll quickly grow tired of.

Worse comes to worse, you have Windows for compatibility and dual boot Linux for your primary.

Anything that brings down the prices of these netbooks makes them more accessible to everyone. Kudos to MS.

[bjsguess @ Apr 30th 2009 8:55PM]

hulahoophugs ...

Incomplete comparison.

Audi would (and should) get ripped if they produced a car that was extremely similar to another make and model but charged 40% more just because it was an Audi.

Nobody is complaining that Apple costs a lot. Plenty of computer manufacturers focus on high-end machines. People rip Apple because dollar for dollar you are paying a huge premium for the same or similar hardware.

[kkl1014 @ Apr 30th 2009 9:21PM]

@Zak

Don't be an idiot. NO Macbooks use IPS panels. In fact no company even supplies anything other than TN panels for laptops. The last laptops offered with IPS panels were not even Macs. They were Thinkpads.

[superhobo @ May 1st 2009 8:37AM]

Don't confront Zak with facts. He'll simply switch to personal attack mode.

[thequinox @ May 1st 2009 10:15PM]

To the OP, nice job.

@ Zak

Just because you heard these things from another Apple fan boy doesn't make it right. LED backlighting is becoming the norm on most laptops. That and yes, no my knowledge everyone is still using TN panels.

Also, try to remember that comparing apples to cars is a horrible analogy. Cars have way more differences in them. When we are talking computers, the only real differences beside simple specs are the OS and the chassis. The Mobo, RAM, HDD, they are all bought from the lowest bidder, it's not like apple HW is any better than PC HW. All you really have is an aluminum body and a different OS.

[Kevin @ Apr 30th 2009 6:10PM]

Just put Home Basic on netbooks...how much harder is that?

[Templarian @ Apr 30th 2009 6:19PM]

It's all based on cost. The OEM is around 10 dollars instead of 100 something.

[Homeboy @ Apr 30th 2009 6:57PM]

Exactly. Start edition is plain dumb. Have Messenger, FF and an anti-virus software running and you've already hit the wall. And that doesn't even includes MS word and skype. I see many other students at my university using netbooks and the 3 application limit will definitely impact them.The usability will be crap and will evidently lead to Android gaining a huge market share as manufacturers will see it as a better options. People are already downgrading from Vista to XP and the starter edition will sure give netbook owners a reason to downgrade from Windows 7 to XP.

Start edition = Triple fail.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 30th 2009 6:40PM]

Once a harsh limit is imposed, many will try to break it. I won't be surprised if someone unlocks the limit.

[David S @ Apr 30th 2009 6:45PM]

MS has said AV won't count as a limit.

It almost seems like anything registered as a service won't count. That could be your hack the limit rule right there. Make every app a service to run "Manually" when launched by a separate self closing program launcher that can close when not in use.

[Homeboy @ Apr 30th 2009 6:57PM]

David S: Smart move but the average Joe and Sandy who aren't hAxxOrZ don't want to bother with complex things as such. this is the reality as many netbook buyers are non computer proficient folks. People can hack all they want but evidently MS will block certain products from being logged as services.

Apple certainly have a netbook-ish device in the pipeline and if priced right, the ease of use will give people yet another reason to turn their backs against windows. As if netbooks weren't already compromised in the hardware department, now they'll have to deal with this. Well let's wait and see when MS drops a beta version of the Win 7-Starter so that the internet community can play around with hacks.

[KeegdnaB @ Apr 30th 2009 7:56PM]

because is you paid attention, Home Basic is for emerging markets. It and starter switched roles from previous versions. Starter is only there so the OEMs can have an absolute bare-bones option for people who are just THAT cheap. Most will people will opt for premium and the OEMs will likely push it and offer some kind of upgrade incentive

[Magnulus @ Apr 30th 2009 6:10PM]

That opening "mac vs. PC" ad is going to do you no good with the reactionary anti-mac-jihadists around here. I predict a torrent of "You're just an Apple subsidiary!" posts in your future, yeeeess.

[Chedstone @ Apr 30th 2009 6:15PM]

You were right!

[hulahoophugs @ Apr 30th 2009 8:05PM]

how could you possibly say that Apple's netbook is the touch/iphone?!?! that's such a ridiculous statement.
sure, it does a lot, almost as much as a netbook could, but it's still an mp3 player/phone!!!

you've almost proven yourself to be a huge fan of the iphone by making such a ridiculous comparison. you're forgetting that it's still just a phone because apple gives you sooo much to do with it.

regardless, it's running a mobile OS on very, very tiny, and thus relatively limited hardware. nowhere near the size of a netbook.

[Brdystyls @ Apr 30th 2009 6:11PM]

... name is Windows 7, sorry

[toxicpiano @ Apr 30th 2009 6:11PM]

Only Seinfeld can save windows 7 starter edition now

[Amun @ Apr 30th 2009 8:14PM]

Hmm... The starter edition is now faced with the choice of celebrity to endorse it: Seinfeld, Mr. T, Conan O'Brien, Barack Obama, or Ozzy Osborne. Almost as confusing as the list of editions of windows! Oh no!

[Pitchy @ Apr 30th 2009 6:11PM]

That's very interesting considering my iPod Touch runs OS X and it won't let me run unlimited apps at any given time. And since Apple isn't really going for the netbook market and sticking to the iPhone / iPod Touch to fill in that gap, then there really isn't much difference in the Win7 starter edition limitation than that with Apple's popular little handhelds.

[H30 @ Apr 30th 2009 6:13PM]

the point of a commercial is ignoring your own flaws and putting emphasis on the flaws of the competition.

[Ignofibininious @ Apr 30th 2009 6:21PM]

The iphone/ipod touch OS is no more OS X than Windows Mobile 7 is Windows 7.

[Shunnabunich @ Apr 30th 2009 6:36PM]

@Igno

Windows Mobile is a completely different and unrelated codebase from desktop/laptop Windows. The OS that runs on iPod touches and iPhones is very literally a pared-down version of Mac OS X. Go through the file system of a jailbroken one some time. The limitation to just a few simultaneous apps (if you count Mail, iPod, timers/alarms, etc.) is, for smarter or dumber, an entirely artificial one decided upon by Apple to keep performance at an acceptable level on such limited hardware, just like Windows 7 Starter's three-app limit.

[Shunnabunich @ Apr 30th 2009 6:40PM]

Well, except that netbooks have fairly more capable hardware than an iPod or iPhone, necessitating less tightening of belts, and Windows 7's limitations are (apparently) for profit, not performance, reasons.

[Kenjis9965 @ Apr 30th 2009 6:49PM]

Exactly, theres two big reasons the iphone doesnt run multiple apps at the same time

One is power, bitch about the iphone's battery life all you want [Some people do, I dont, I've had phones with much worse battery life, as in measured in minutes of call time rather than hours] but Apple had to work pretty hard to combine what it did into this device...

The iphone is smaller, lighter and easier to carry than a netbook [Not that a netbook is a pain to carry, but it also doesnt fit in your pocket now does it?] and thus it has a slower processor, less ram, less storage, and less expandability

Apple decided to disable multitasking for now very likely because it would tax the meager power-efficient processor in the iPhone way too much, and also likely to increase battery life, because if they DID allow multitasking, people would then start complaining about the terrible battery life..

A Netbook on the other hand is a cheap small fully-functional computer, and if you have the ION platform in there, a pretty powerful one too

The limitation of running "3 apps at once" is likely a profit-motivated one rather than any true limitations on the device....I ran 4-5 browser windows, itunes, word and Adium on a 10 year old Pismo Powerbook, and those new Netbooks are actually quite a bit more powerful than that thing was...

[nanowoodward @ Apr 30th 2009 7:59PM]

The only difference is that apple was able to differentiate it's mobile OS and computer OS enough that people don't compare the two. The "one app" limit doesn't get stuck in people's minds as "oh no, OS X can only run 1 app at a time". on the flipside, a netbook is close enough to a laptop that it essentially runs an identical system, so any "3 app limit" will get stuck with windows 7, even when considering a desktop or capable laptop.

[Max @ Apr 30th 2009 9:22PM]

Its a good idea but it would have much more sense to say, give the computers a rating and have the judge how many programs they can run at once. Windows already does the first part.

[Adam @ Apr 30th 2009 6:12PM]

This is really dumb.

Of course Apple lets you run as many Apps as you want out of the box. PC's will let you do the same with 7.

This is just for netbooks. Apple does not have a netbook. So of course it is BS. Microsoft is just trying to keep the OS running fast and smooth by limiting 3 programs at a time.

OS X would slow down just as much as 7 if you try and run 15 different things on a netbook.

This is a lame attempt to take a shot at 7.