Microsoft publishes maximum Windows 7 netbooks specs

One step forward, one step back: just as we were getting ready to celebrate Microsoft's decision to remove the three-app limit from Windows 7 Starter Edition, we're hearing that Redmond is still planning to impose strict limits on what types of machines get to run the stripped-down build. Just like today's max XP specs, things are pretty weak all around: Window 7 Starter machines will max out at 10.2-inch screens, 1GB of RAM, 250GB hard drives or 64GB SSDs, and single-core processors under 2GHz. Of course, Microsoft's told us all along that it thinks lots of OEMs will ignore the max specs and just ship Windows 7 Home Premium since it runs way better on netbooks than Vista, but we'll see how this plays out at Computex -- we're expecting a wave of 10.2-inch netbooks with 2GHz procs and 1GB of RAM in the near future.

[Via ZDNet]

[TexasComputerDude @ May 22nd 2009 7:50PM]

whatever happened to just having ONE reasonably priced OS....


then sell addon packs for whatever extra features you want... jk lol

[Epsilon-Not @ May 22nd 2009 8:10PM]

That's the plan, I think- with Windows 7 Microsoft is indeed going to start selling upgrade packs between the versions, since each builds on the previous in terms of features... the whole point of crippling Starter was to convince people to buy the Starter -> Home Premium upgrade, making Microsoft a bit more money.

[darkmax @ May 22nd 2009 8:19PM]

Someone (apparently enough of them) with a laptop, about a decade ago, complained that they do not need all that trash during installation of Windows and wish for a smaller one. Voila! We can get a lot less trash but a lot more money paid.

[DR House @ May 22nd 2009 8:26PM]

Isnt that kinda illegal? they are trying to control the whole net book market i mean thats SILLY
why only 250GB HD and not 320GB? why 1GB ram and not 2GB, microsoft sell your OS and fuck off about telling us what type of net book we get

[DR House @ May 22nd 2009 8:28PM]

AND no i wont want to pay premium price for another windows OS which i ALREADY have for my netbook , they dont allow you to share your OS between your desktop/netbook meh i want cheap windows 7 home basic for my net book but dont tell me that i cant get 12.1 net book without paying another time for windows you greedy bastards

[Awjvail @ May 22nd 2009 9:30PM]

@Dr House:

Why would it be illegal?

They aren't stopping you from using something higher. They're setting maximum specs for the manufacturers that they license THEIR software to.

[ethana2 @ May 22nd 2009 11:39PM]

"whatever happened to just having ONE reasonably priced OS...."

Working on it.

[cg0def @ May 23rd 2009 2:31AM]

Actually there is one reasonably priced OS ... OS X ... but then you end up with quite high price of the hardware and it pretty much evens itself out ...

Oh and way to go MS. After all you guys just could resists screwing us again, right? Just a though but exactly how is windows 7 supposed to replace windows xp on the netbook front with stupid restrictions like that? And how log do you think it will be before the netbook CPUs are over 2ghz? 1 year? Would you actually have released the retail version of 7 by then?

[kamel5547 @ May 23rd 2009 3:12AM]

Want a reasonably priced OS use Linux... the price is very reasonable. Want features from a different OS, well then pay the license fee. Personally i don't know what people are complaining about, yes the OS's are getting more expensive, but that is what inflation does. Unlike hardware, software tends to follow the CPI.

Personally I find the new stance much more user friendly than the three app limit. Additionally most OEM's get very steep discounts, so yes you may pay an extra $10 to buy a netbook because it has a higher edition, but it isn't that big of a difference all things considered.

[Theli @ May 23rd 2009 4:22AM]

I was wondering about this as well. I mean, upgrades and multiple editions of Windows is hardly anything new.
Wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be 'highly modular', and allow the user to buy premium features one at a time?
There was quite a lot of buzz around this following the announcement of Windows 7, but it has died down. Perhaps they couldn't find any simple (and profitable) way of implementing it.

[Amrosorma @ May 22nd 2009 7:51PM]

Oh dear.

[Alex @ May 22nd 2009 9:20PM]

It's not as bad as you think. Microsoft is seeking to clarify the division between netbooks and full-on laptops. Maybe MS will make a bit more money in the end, but who cares? This business of people buying netbooks thinking they're full-features laptops is only harming the industries rep.

[Alex @ May 22nd 2009 9:21PM]

And by industries I mean industry's.
Damn it I feel stupid.

[Andir3.0 @ May 22nd 2009 9:28PM]

What the hell? You think it's okay for MS to decide what's a netbook and what's not? Why not let the customer decide what specs they want in their hardware?

I've never seen something so stupid as MAXIMUM requirements.

[Josh Warner @ May 22nd 2009 10:03PM]

I haven't seen anything quite this stupid either. It's like they are totally oblivious to the existence of Ubuntu Netbook Remix and other netbook-friendly Linux distros. They're just about signing this entire market over to Linux in ~1 year, because then you'll have the options "souped-up fully functional Linux version" or "year-old crappy tech with crippled Windows." Even Joe Sixpack is going to start asking questions then.

Biggest problems I see in that list are the 1GB of RAM and the screen size. They are really screwing themselves over here.

[MioTheGreat @ May 22nd 2009 10:20PM]

I see this as a good thing, myself. It'll limit the spread of the crippled version of 7.

[jakem @ May 23rd 2009 2:44AM]

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from building netbooks with better specs but they just need to include a more expensive version of Windows. Linux doesn't pose any threat in the Netbook market as history has shown that customers will shun it in favour of Windows and there's no reason why Microsoft should lose money just to maintain low Netbook prices.

[Patriks7 @ May 23rd 2009 4:45AM]

I don't see why you people are all complaining. Remember what a netbook was supposed to be? Something small, cheap and easy to use. Lately, what have manufacturers been doing? 12 inch "netbooks" with the price of a full laptop.
So Microsoft is just trying to help to keep a limit on the real netbook market. Then there's Home Premium for the manufacturers willing to make something between 10 and 13 inches (aka the ultra portables!).

[Level 5 @ May 22nd 2009 7:52PM]

I hope OEM's just flip the finger to these requirements. To stomp out dual-core Atoms would be an abomination.

[Mark Anderson @ May 22nd 2009 7:56PM]

Right. They could always use Linux instead. Well they could if anyone actually wanted it.

So, yeah, it'll be W7HP on machines costing more money and since people buy them as a fashion item rather than for reasons of economy that's not going to be an issue.

[Zoesch @ May 22nd 2009 8:49PM]

Mark, right, sure no one would want a netbook with a dual core Atom and a lightweight version of Windows 7...

[Mark Anderson @ May 23rd 2009 4:40AM]

Well they're not getting it.

All three of them.

[Mark Anderson @ May 22nd 2009 7:53PM]

I think it's because:

a) Netbooks are a fad.
b) It'll be subsidised.

[darkmax @ May 22nd 2009 8:21PM]

if netbooks are a fad, it has lasted way too long.

[Andir3.0 @ May 22nd 2009 9:32PM]

If you don't like it, don't buy it... why is this such a problem with you? Let people that want a small portable laptop have them in whatever color, size, shape, smell and flavor they want. I think setting maximum requirements and making it a violation of the EULA is a bit anti-competitive. MS strong-arming the hardware net book industry. I hope they see another courtroom for it.

[Tom @ May 22nd 2009 7:54PM]

I don't see why this is a big deal. They are selling basically a beginner edition of their O/S meant for non powerful computers, and they don't want this cheap version of their O/S to be used on much more powerful machines.

[Yem @ May 23rd 2009 4:52AM]

Why shouldn't customers who purchased the software be allowed to run it on powerful hardware so they have a nice snappy experience? Microsoft owns the IP, but when you've paid for the use of the software, where you put it is none of their business.

This market engineering is a joke. Remember when Microsoft was a good brand? Now it's a byword for oppressive licensing and bloat.

[Greg2k @ May 23rd 2009 6:21AM]

Yem, what in the world makes you think Starter Edition would be far snappier than Home Premium on powerful hardware? If you have powerful hardware, use a proper version of 7, not a crippled one just for the sake of having something speedy. If you want that you can just bypass Windows altogether and use Linux, or upgrade your RAM for a couple bucks. And if the cost of Windows is your issue then, well, you shouldn't even be considering Windows.

Seriously, Microsoft has put a lot of effort in making Windows awesome once again with Windows 7. If you're still believing the bullshit anti-MS statements that predict it will run like a turtle, try it for yourself.

[Bryant @ May 23rd 2009 5:00PM]

"when you've paid for the use of the software, where you put it is none of their business."

Yes it is. It's part of the terms you agreed to when you've paid to use the software. If it was told to you *after* you paid, that would be a different story.

[JCerna @ May 22nd 2009 7:54PM]

They forgot to release how much it's going to cost you. As long as it is way cheaper than home version I guess it beats getting xp

[Zak @ May 22nd 2009 7:54PM]

Oh for fuck's sake, Microsoft.

[The Walrus @ May 22nd 2009 8:04PM]

What? It's not like the manufacturers cant just use Premium, as pointed out in the article.

And besides, isn't this what Apple did with Psystar?

[Zak @ May 22nd 2009 8:19PM]

If the manufacturers can just use premium then why does this version exist at all? Artificial limitations based on different hardware configurations are exceedingly stupid. Hey Microsoft here's an idea: Windows 7 for PCs, and Windows 7 Server for servers. And WinMo 7 for mobiles. How hard is that?

[The Walrus @ May 22nd 2009 8:25PM]

Because some companies may want to put out stripped down, light machines at a low price, maybe? Remarkable, I know.

I don't understand how this could be a weakness for all, it is just more choices for manufacturers to look at and offer to consumer.

The idea that simplicity is needed is ridiculous when it comes with a compromise of choice.

Hardware limitations based on imaginary bags of pain are the real stupid ideas.

[jon @ May 22nd 2009 8:25PM]

Zak, it exists for low cost systems, that might otherwise use Linux.

Not everybody needs all the functions of HP, and don't want to pay for features the can't or won't use.

[Fanfoot @ May 22nd 2009 8:34PM]

Because apparently in order to get Windows XP onto netbooks they had to sell it for like $15.00, which is part of what makes those netbooks inexpensive. Presumably without that move, Linux would have gained more of a footing.

Which was fine when it was just XP, but now they want everybody to move to Windows 7. Either they have to sell all versions of 7 for $15.00, or they need to segment the market.

Personally, I could have cared less about the 3 app limit. And yes, I still want my $15.00 Windows 7 netbook version. Too bad it won't be viable on 11.6" netbooks though... Oh well.

[Andir3.0 @ May 22nd 2009 9:49PM]

"Zak, it exists for low cost systems, that might otherwise use Linux. "

Can you say predatory pricing? Welcome to anti-trust!

[Epsilon-Not @ May 22nd 2009 10:17PM]

How can the pricing be predatory when the product they're competing against is free?

[Bradford @ May 22nd 2009 10:25PM]

@Epsilon-not

Haha! +1 to you.

[Andir3.0 @ May 23rd 2009 9:00AM]

ecause they are specifically pricing their good to compete with another product. It doesn't matter if the product is free.

[Epsilon-Not @ May 23rd 2009 11:38AM]

They're pricing their product to compete with another product? Isn't that how pricing works?

Now, it's possible that the low price amounts to selling Windows 7 "at a loss", but that's hard to tell really- it's probably still more expensive than the actual physical components involved, (disk, box- since its an OEM copy will there even be a box?) after all. And again, the competition is free, so it's not like they're under-cutting the competitor's price, they're just limiting its advantage.

[Andir3.0 @ May 23rd 2009 6:20PM]

Having a majority market share and selling your product (Windows 7) at a cheaper price to discourage people from purchasing competing products (Linux) is predatory pricing. It doesn't matter if one is free. It's not about undercutting. It's about charging people with money (real computers) more to subsidize the underselling of the netbook version to limit competition. With 90% market share, cheap is basically free. Products sould be sold at a reasonable price to cover the cost of developing, marketing and selling said product. Selling your product for less than this amount and charging more for the same thing on other markets is illegal. If, for instance, Windows 7 only costs Microsoft $7 per copy to make, sell, and profit (as the netbook price would denote) then that should be the cost of all versions. Period.

[JS @ May 22nd 2009 7:55PM]

1 GB of RAM sucks. 2 GB RAM shoulda been the limit. M$FT can never figure out the appropriate amount of RAM it's like they load the OS and no applications and then say "ok, looks like there is enough RAM .. hmm 640K oughta be enough for everyone" ..

[Mark Anderson @ May 22nd 2009 7:56PM]

So get one with W7HP installed.

[resource @ May 22nd 2009 7:59PM]

More room for Android 2.0 and 3.0 to take off on netbooks.

[jakem @ May 23rd 2009 5:32AM]

Yeah right.

[Jamman @ May 22nd 2009 8:00PM]

Up the RAM to 2Gb and the screen size to 12" and all's fine.

I Can see why they did this though, not wanting people to cheap out and buy the notebook version for their PC. They're going to have to restrict something.

[r3loaded @ May 22nd 2009 8:50PM]

QFT, I'd still consider the Samsung NC20 a netbook due to its low-cost internals. And RAM is dirt-cheap nowadays, and W7 runs great with 2gigs. So why is Microsoft incentivising manufacturers to make netbooks with only 1GB of RAM?

[The Dude @ May 22nd 2009 8:05PM]

It's to keep manufacturer's from beefing up specs (and charging accordingly) but keeping it cheap on the Windows license by bundling Starter/Home Basic. Microsoft wants to see more $$$ per license on the better hardware. Otherwise, seeing Starter/Home Basic on a decent notebook would remain a possibility. Manufacturer's aren't likely to do it because they might have enough sense to anticipate that users want Home Premium+ but still, if MS hadn't put these limits it would have remained possible. Then MS would take shit from end users because Starter/Home Basic is balls but users didn't know any better when the manufacturer offered it on their non-netbook.

Single-core limitation is balls, though. That rules out dual-core Atom (Diamondville), doesn't it? No dual-core Atom = No Buy.

[jon @ May 22nd 2009 8:11PM]

Why in the world would you want W7 starter?

Anything with a dual core atom is going to have W7 HP anyway.