Article on arid.net (http://digg.com/d1pTAK) that talked about windows 7 starter edition and had suggestions on a better way to implement the starter edition for netbooks.

Does this means only three viruses can run on Windows 7 at the same time? I think Microsoft just came up with their most secure Windows ever!

As long as.

1/ the price is right.
2/ I unstall Ubuntu also.
3/ I use Opera (as it gives me web/mail/chat/rss all in one.

I can see how Starter would work really well for my netbook.

I wouldn't pay more than £20 for it thou.

I can not say what they would do, but I can give you the two options they will have to choose from:

1. Windows 7 Shite Edition - only 3 apps at a time and on a netbook it won't be the most responsive; or

2. GNU/Linux Distro - can run any number of apps your netbook can run without bogging down, and GNU/Linux on a netbook can be very resonsive if customised for a netbook (check out Ubuntu netbook remix for instance, it works very well on an netbook and offers a responsiveness that MS dreams about but has not had. On my netbook it can run OOo (spreadsheet), firefox, thunderbird, rythmbox, several java apps, console and a text editor all simultaneously).

Three apps only is a hinderence to even the lowest spec'd computer.

According to this, Microsoft is raking in less than USD15 per netbook:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=3418

You can see why it’s becoming so desperate to shore up its detumescing profit margins. But customers have become accustomed to getting Windows cheaply—what will they do once that’s no longer possible?

This is Microsoft’s effort to keep down the price disparity between Windows and Linux versions of similarly-specced netbooks. Trouble is, it really eats into their profit margins. So by offering this crippled “Starter Edition”, they’re hoping to force customers into paying more for an uncrippled version of Windows, and by having it happen later as an “Anytime Upgrade”, instead of at the time of purchase of the machine, they hope the customer won’t notice the sticker shock.

Of course, underhanded revenue-maximization tactics tend not to work. I think it’ll just drive more people to the Linux option.

Have Microsoft not learnt?
You only need one application. How about Chrome, with multiple tabs, windows etc, and then you have Gmail, Google Calendar, Google spreadsheet and wordprocessing, etc, etc.

You won't be able to do much with MS Office though, as all the bits are separate programs.

In the past Windows and Office have always helped sell each other, but in this case Microsoft are making the competition look VERY attractive (unless they treat the entire Office suite as one application!)

Wait... wat?

The filesystem? Have you ever ran anything other than an NTFS (or FAT for that matter) filesystem?

Get a clue idiot.

I'm still not going to buy it.

I never run more apps anyway, because Windows is so goddamned slow! I guess their filesystem is really crappy.

I still wouldn't spend any money on it. They should give it away for free.

Wouldn't it be very much possible to modify the OS to be able to run more than 3.

It wouldn't matter, I doubt the Starter Edition will sell. I see Home Basic/Premium and Ultimate being the biggest sellers.

Oh, and to those who say there only needs to be two releases... Why? It only bogs down to three releases: Home, Business, and Ultimate. Home has two versions, Basic and Premium. Basic is for those who have a slight hiccup on their system, but want the latest Windows Release. Premium is... well, I don't know. It'll be the majority of users, such as myself.

Whats wrong with opening an application when it is needed and then closing it once finished. I have a very powerful desktop and an extremely powerful laptop and this is what I always do. Open 1 maybe 2 application(s) at a time.

So you can run an anti-virus software, a third party fire-wall and ie8 to download all the infected crud you could ever want - priceless.

Anyone explain to me why they don't just release 2 versions and be done with it? A business version and a home version. Make the price nice for both and hey presto, they will have a huge installer base that will feel less cheated by the dozen versions that will be available no doubt.

This was BS the first time they rumor popped up, and unless there's a MS press article or a MS employee blog article, it's BS today.

There's no good reason to limit the number of apps running and I don't see how it's possible to exclude all AV apps in any simple way.

Is this confirmation that Win7 now *WILL* have '3 apps only' version after previously backtracking saying that it wasn't going to happen?

How is this news? maybe a couple of months ago but not in April.

This is old news, besides, MS have already said that running AV software won't count in the application limit.

Lets hope they dont repeat what happened with vista.

Maybe the 'windows 7 capable' or whatever they will be tooting at the time should also say what flavour it is capable of running as well.