Microsoft publishes maximum Windows 7 netbooks specs
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 22nd 2009 7:42PM
posted May 22nd 2009 7:42PM
[Via ZDNet]
posted May 22nd 2009 7:42PM
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.
Except for enthusiasts who will put it on whatever the hell suits 'em.
...you can run Windows 7 Ultimate on a netbook, what's the issue with having a cap at where sellers can give you a different version? Every time MS tries to make their OS applicable to many by segmenting it (and giving the choice to the users between Professional and Home, leaving Starter to netbook sellers), they get bashed. If they put everything in one OS, they'd get bashed for bloat. If they made it DLC instead, they'd get bashed for it being unnecessarily complicated. Get a grip people.
10.8 inch screen means that there won't be an acceptable keyboard. That is the biggest functionality killer. Anything else is fine as long as the ram is upgradable.
I bought a Lenovo Ideapad S10 for my wife...She loves it, its great.. it came with 1GB of Ram which was fine at first, but now she's multi-tasking with Email, Chrome, Media Player, Open Office, and a couple other things... add to that Anti-Virus software, P2P, MSN Live Messenger, etc. and RAM is getting squeezed. I don't like the idea that I can't upgrade her RAM to 2GB because I'd have to add in the cost of Windows 7 Home Premium when really should would be fine with Basic..
If Microsoft wants to limit W7Basic to a single core processor and 2Gz, I have no problem.. but I certainly don't think they should limit the RAM.. That's B.S.
Since starter is a version that is being sold to OEMs only. It's very likely the differance is mainly in the License and not in the actual software. It's very easy to make sure a large firm, like an OEM is complying with your Licesne. It's very hard and absolutley pointless to try and make the software changes in this case to make sure that Consumers stay compliant. In other words, you should be able to upgrade ram and HD fine.
the solution, fellas... is so easy.
solution 1 ) if the os has internal checks on the hardware, trust me, it'll be hacked before launch
solution 2 ) if this is just a restriction on which os vendors can install whichever os version... then do what you should do anytime you by a pc, format your drive and install the os you just torrented.
Someone with a cookie cutter BA thought up this brilliant idea. I just know it. Either that or its Ballmer's idea...dude is a tard to begin with. People with business degrees are like children with a loaded handgun.
Like the XP maximim specs likely to be a license limit, not a enforced limitation in Windows itself. It would give Microsoft a great deal of trouble if Windows stops working if someone upgrades the hardware, for example use a larger harddrive.
I have seen work arounds for this rule. Acer sells it's netbooks here with XP and 2GB memory, but the official wording is '1GB with free 2GB upgrade' So they sell you 2GB but the official spec is 1GB.
Provdides a good excuse and sales argument
Customer service: is your CPU faster than 2GHz?
Caller: Yes of course
Customer service: In that case I can't help you, you clearly use it outside our specs, have a good day, you will be billed $50 for this consult
Yay my less-than-15watt CPU powered system can do DX11, just as long as XP doesn't huh.
Oh and obviously and naturally Kim il Balmer won't allow anything but resistive touch on XP/vista, even though the OS has little to do with that.
Well thanks for the update.
the more I think about it, the more I think everyone should just run Ubuntu on their netbooks
I hope you are happy MS, you just handed Linux to netbooks on a silver platter! Where is your thinking with these limitations -- every netbook owner has already modified the crap out of theirs, well beyond the arbitrary specs you made public as maximums for Win 7 Starter. The only other real "Bonehead'" move would be the 3 app thing.
Wake up and smell the coffee, MS!
"you just handed Linux to netbooks on a silver platter!" - so now, 2010 will be the year of Linux, I presume?
"every netbook owner has already modified the crap out of theirs" - yeah right :D
"The only other real "Bonehead'" move would be the 3 app thing." - which is gone by now, but hey, don't let reality get in your way!
Really guys...... Falm the F down. These are restriction on Manufacture's if they want a $15 dollar version of Windows 7 starter. If they want to go beyond the stated "maximum" hardware they can. They would just need to use the $50 Windows 7 Home Premium.
Can't seem to spell...... Also if people want to upgrade their netbook with more ram they can with no consequence except better performance.
MS can easily put a RAM support limitation in a version of windows, as their past version have abundantly proven.
So let me get this right, if I buy an upgrade for Windows 7 Microsoft will allow HP to sell me a netbook with more than 1GB of ram, what crack money thought that stupid idea up, how about I just install Linux and have as much ram as I want and not pay the chair throwing crack smokers more money.
typo "crack monkey"
So, what's an SDD then?
Salle de Douches (French: shower room)
So if i OC my netbook, will it cease to be?
Never before have I seen so many people completely miss the point.
This limitation is so manufacturers can't make a tricked out quad core desktop replacement laptop and put windows starter on it just to make it a bit cheaper. Windows Starter is meant for cheap, low-powered laptops and Microsoft is making sure it only gets on those machines.
It genuinely bothers me that Microsoft is able to mandate the technical specifications of netbooks. They were latecomers to this segment of the computer industry... why the hell should Asus or anyone else who makes netbooks give a damn what Bill Gates and his cronies want?
Balmer runs the show now I'm told.
haha, We can only use 1 gb of memory. No matter how much faster and smoother the operating system is over Vista this limiting factor balances things out. I'll keep my 2GB vista 32.
From 512gb to 1gb. from 1gb - 2gb there is a needed and noticeable difference. From 2 to 4, 4 - 8 its nice but we can all live without it.
Most of these if not all will run Windows7 Home Premium fine. Why would you want the starter edition? If Home Premium is not fast enough you can always tweak it.
http://jamesmsingleton.com
My blog post for today's IT thought of The Day Blog (http://www.itthoughtoftheday.com) was thoughts about your article. I wanted to share them with you.
I really get very upset every time that a player in the Information Age, Microsoft this time, takes a self serving position for market reasons that hurts the Internet public. With these restrictions, no hardware vendor will produce a netbook exceeding these specifications because they will be unable to market or pass the cost of higher Microsoft licensing fees onto their customers.
Time and time again, it has been shown that most users will simply not pay extra for operating system features. This will essentially stall all development on netbooks until Microsoft decides to raise their bar. Since we are discussing a hardware limitation here, users will not even have the option of purchasing an upgraded version of Windows 7 on their own since the hardware will limit its performance to no better than they would have gotten under the Starter Edition.
This is sad news — netbooks will be crippled by this for years even though the technology is rapidly arriving to make their performance rival top-of-the-line notebooks of today. All I want is freedom for hardware vendors to make the netbooks that they want and can combined with freedom for users to purchase the version of Windows that they desire. I don’t want to be told by Redmond how powerful my netbook is allowed to be.
Maybe we can all hope that this will drive hardware vendors to alternate operating systems to show the power of their systems when not constrained by Microsoft licensing agreements. I doubt that will happen due to market share, thought.
IT Thought of The Day Blog is @ITThought on Twitter.
What this is really about is stopping the ever closing gap between Netbooks and Notebooks in terms of hardware features and size (Notebooks getting smaller and lower-power-usage hardware, Netbooks getting bigger and more powerful) and creating a clear distinction between Netbooks (running 7 Starter) and Notebooks (running 7 Home Premium)
If only Linux was not so complicated! installing a program or even freaking adobe flash is harder then removing a virus manually from my computer. and why in the world would adobe not have a fully functional flash for a 64 based PC!! soory that that rant is over, but i seriously dislike Microsoft and their marketing schemes. i just want to buy ONE OS that has everything within reasonable price, not freaking $400, i could but a whole other netbook with that amount. and since when has the OS deemed what your MAXIMUM specs can be? that's like the gov putting a maximum MPG limit on cars.
My girl friend has a netbook and a laptop. The reason for the net book is that it's smaller and is easier to take from class to class. I think the main reason there is a max on the system is so that people will need both. So they'll make more money either way. Also, most people i know are afraid of Linux, and really to be honest, i had 3 computers running the same MS product ket at the same time, no problem. Just have to work the system.
Microsoft doesn't get it yet that if they keep double the XP price, smaller screen, and lots of restrictions -- There will be three people in the country who do not order with XP. Worse yet, alternate OS's will gain marketshare because gazillions of netbooks are going to be bought by industry who want a single-application device -- and why wrap $50 to $100 around each of them because Microsoft can't figure out how to make money at it.
Wait -- that would shoot holes in the .Net development environment as well, and as long as we are developing in Linux to save money on terminals, why not continue the code back to the main application on PC's or Web applications? I think we have seen the chink in Redmond's armor.