«

How many apps can you really run at once?

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4074>

On Apr 1, 1:42*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> How many apps can you really run at once?
>
> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4074>

I don't normally like to comment on these snips, but after reading the
article I have to agree that it is a singularly stupid innovation. I
mean, really, It sounds like shareware.

In message <cf839fe7-ca12-4528-b6da->, Hamish Campbell wrote:

> On Apr 1, 1:42 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> How many apps can you really run at once?
>>
>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4074>
>
> ... I have to agree that it is a singularly stupid innovation.

You know why Microsoft is doing Starter Edition? It's all about netbooks.
They've been offering cut-price XP on that for the last year and a bit,
but that can't last, if only because it's hurting Microsoft's profits.

Seven Starter Edition will be the cut-price successor to XP on netbooks. On
its own it won't improve Microsoft's profitability any, but you will have an
"instant upgrade" option
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/579/1051579/windows-instant-upgrade-option>,
and Microsoft is hoping that you'll be willing to pay to ease the pain of
Starter Edition's restrictions.

> If there is a market for it, people will buy it. So long as the limitation
> is obvious at the time of purchase, I don't see a problem. I personally
> wouldn't have a bar of software with such limitations, but I wouldn't seek
> to limit someone else's choice in the matter.

On the face of it, sure, but the '3 application' limit directly
impacts on it's singular purpose of 'running applications'. Can you
still call it a full product release?

Also, how many times have I been at Dick Smiths listening to some
sales guy pitching the latest graphics card and 1TB hard disk to
someone who just want to send emails and play solitaire? Not everyone
is an informed consumer. Of course people looking for cheap computers
will go for the cheap OS.. and many people are going to be surprised
at what they get. Their own fault? Maybe it is... but it's definitely
poor form on M$'s part.

"Hamish Campbell" <> wrote in message
news:cf839fe7-ca12-4528-b6da-...

> I don't normally like to comment on these snips, but after reading the
> article I have to agree that it is a singularly stupid innovation. I
> mean, really, It sounds like shareware.

Browsing and email, maybe run a little music in the background..... What
else is there to do (well) with an entry-level netbook? At a US$199
price-point, running those 3 apps and no more will suit a lot of people just
fine. Come Christmas, they'll be flying off the shelves. Meanwhile, the bulk
of the netbook market is headed upscale -- bigger screens, faster
processors, more memory and storage -- so it's a win-win situation for
Microsoft.

In message <753ef9f9-2374-4e30-803e-
>, Hamish Campbell wrote:

> Also, how many times have I been at Dick Smiths listening to some
> sales guy pitching the latest graphics card and 1TB hard disk to
> someone who just want to send emails and play solitaire? Not everyone
> is an informed consumer.

Oh, they're getting informed, all right. That's why netbooks are the only
segment of the PC market showing any growth at the moment.

> Of course people looking for cheap computers will go for the cheap OS..

And if Microsoft tries to boots its sagging profit margins and push up the
price disparity, that just makes Linux look more attractive.

"Hamish Campbell" <> wrote in message
news:753ef9f9-2374-4e30-803e-...
>> If there is a market for it, people will buy it. So long as the
>> limitation
>> is obvious at the time of purchase, I don't see a problem. I personally
>> wouldn't have a bar of software with such limitations, but I wouldn't
>> seek
>> to limit someone else's choice in the matter.
>
> On the face of it, sure, but the '3 application' limit directly
> impacts on it's singular purpose of 'running applications'. Can you
> still call it a full product release?
>

No, but....hmmm...maybe that's why they call it the "Starter Edition".

> Also, how many times have I been at Dick Smiths listening to some
> sales guy pitching the latest graphics card and 1TB hard disk to
> someone who just want to send emails and play solitaire? Not everyone
> is an informed consumer. Of course people looking for cheap computers
> will go for the cheap OS.. and many people are going to be surprised
> at what they get. Their own fault? Maybe it is... but it's definitely
> poor form on M$'s part.

Nah. The oems want Windows -- they can hardly move any machines without
it -- so it's all down to royalty costs. Microsoft is going to help them
reach the sub-US$199 netbook price-point that oems crave, but with a Starter
Edition of Windows 7 that clearly signals the limitations of those machines.
Oems who want to tap into the growing market for more upscale netbook and
notebook models will have to pay Microsoft significantly bigger royalties
for versions of Windows 7 that can accomodate those customers, and that's
what Microsoft is really counting on.

Allistar wrote:
> Hamish Campbell wrote:
>
>>> If there is a market for it, people will buy it. So long as the
>>> limitation is obvious at the time of purchase, I don't see a problem. I
>>> personally wouldn't have a bar of software with such limitations, but I
>>> wouldn't seek to limit someone else's choice in the matter.
>> On the face of it, sure, but the '3 application' limit directly
>> impacts on it's singular purpose of 'running applications'. Can you
>> still call it a full product release?
>
> Given that the limitation is publicised, yes. I think you can.
>
>> Also, how many times have I been at Dick Smiths listening to some
>> sales guy pitching the latest graphics card and 1TB hard disk to
>> someone who just want to send emails and play solitaire? Not everyone
>> is an informed consumer.
>
> That is not a fault of companies that explain their products' limitations.
> It's a fault of the consumer, and partly the reseller.
>
>> Of course people looking for cheap computers
>> will go for the cheap OS.. and many people are going to be surprised
>> at what they get. Their own fault? Maybe it is... but it's definitely
>> poor form on M$'s part.
>
> If MS were intentionally misleading anyone I would agree. But I don't think
> they are in this case.

I guess we'll see if they offer a paid upgrade version or not.

Bret wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:09:32 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
>> Hamish Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>> If there is a market for it, people will buy it. So long as the
>>>> limitation is obvious at the time of purchase, I don't see a problem. I
>>>> personally wouldn't have a bar of software with such limitations, but I
>>>> wouldn't seek to limit someone else's choice in the matter.
>>>
>>> On the face of it, sure, but the '3 application' limit directly
>>> impacts on it's singular purpose of 'running applications'. Can you
>>> still call it a full product release?
>>
>> Given that the limitation is publicised, yes. I think you can.
>>
>>> Also, how many times have I been at Dick Smiths listening to some
>>> sales guy pitching the latest graphics card and 1TB hard disk to
>>> someone who just want to send emails and play solitaire? Not everyone
>>> is an informed consumer.
>>
>> That is not a fault of companies that explain their products'
>> limitations. It's a fault of the consumer, and partly the reseller.
>>
>>> Of course people looking for cheap computers
>>> will go for the cheap OS.. and many people are going to be surprised
>>> at what they get. Their own fault? Maybe it is... but it's definitely
>>> poor form on M$'s part.
>>
>> If MS were intentionally misleading anyone I would agree. But I don't
>> think they are in this case.
>
> I can see a lot of CGA returns ie: Not fit for the intended purpose.

I think this was happening with the basic version of "Vista Home", too.
People bought the cheap version and then took it back when it didn't
meet their expectations (which had been elevated by marketing hype).

Murray.

> I can see a lot of CGA returns ie: Not fit for the intended purpose.

Agreed.

> Well, they should research their purchases better.

You shouldn't have to investigate something like "will it be able to
run more than 3 applications at once?". There are plenty of computer
users who would need the word 'application' defined before they could
start to make sense of the sentence.

Imagine if they did that with new cars - rev limited 'starter edition'
at 4,000 rpm, with the option to upgrade to the 'professional'
version.

> If MS were intentionally misleading anyone I would agree.
> But I don't think they are in this case.

I don't think they're trying to be misleading, nevertheless, I think a
lot of people will be mislead.

Anywho, I guess we'll wait and see if they actually follow through.