Windows 7 will have instant upgrade option

Old news.

Vista already has something like this anyway. All the Vista DVDs contain all the versions of Vista (Home Basic/Premium, Business, Ultimate), and you can upgrade anytime to access whatever versions you need (there are separate versions for 32 and 64-bit however) The only difference here is that some features may already be on the system but deactivated, so people don't need to put the DVD in.

But watch as a million cheap-ass naysayers, the kind who whine about buying $15 of RAM and who will never buy Win 7 anyway (i.e. people Microsoft could not care less about), complain endlessly about how it's wasting a GB of space or so on their multi-hundred gigabyte hard drives.

If this is true, M$ would be putting M$7 at a disadvantage in terms of Netbooks. Netbooks aren't known to have a lot of hard disc space, and if installing an OS with basic functionality will take up an 'ultimate' amount of HDD space, it will not be popular. Perhapse they will have a Netbook version?

I'm building a computer for my kids now. Parts are on the way from Newegg, 80 gb HDD. I considered Ubuntu but went with Windows XP (get em while they're hot) because some of their school's educational software needs Windows. 1 gig of ram, would have used 512 mb with Ubuntu. No Vista because of the resource requirements. If Windows7 were out, and if it were a HDD hog and XP weren't available, it would have been Ubuntu - with an apology for the incompatability/extra hassle of using some programs. So, I'm a cheapskate with a small HDD, and a windows customer. Darn right M$ should watch their footprint.

I noticed an oversight or misprint in this article: EVERY version of Windows has an instant upgrade option which increases performance and security, along with providing all the software customers are likely to need for free. This is available for free download from:

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

No need to upgrade your hardware, either.

Only FREEMASONS' Could Invent Such Expensive System. You buy everything & install it on old unit, you get cut back, like it or not. Yet if you have system that plays Ultimate 64, give 'Em entire resort, Selling modules is Very Cheap on Sellers part. Why Not clear Channel in Mid Summer, Putting ALL loosely Compatible Hardware into Xp-Media PVR or Pro, Vista for large number of O/S Configurations, especially starter for real OLD Junk, & Make 7 near 64 bit only, X58 & Above,890+, for TOP $$$ Shopper. Yet to start Selling What May Not work when installed & User Dosn't Even Understand usefullness of most add-ons,, NO Clean ALL n' One Package, Good As Fart At Diplomatic Dinner Party. TS drashek

Not only did the gang at Microsoft slashed and burned innovative technology from Vista added super DRM to the mix and you can't do anything anymore because Microsoft decides what you can add as hardware and run as software. As a developer it does not cut it. I tried it and when I needed to upgrade a driver and failed, sorry folks, I made my plans, and without Microsoft.

Time to go Ubuntu definately?

PS: @Drashek, did you ever fart at a diplomatic dinner party?

Quake Shareware CD

in *helpful* gimmicks.

& Please dont instal resource wasting and pointless software services on my PC slowing it down 24/7 just so you can upgrade quickly once in a lifetime.

I finally worked out why MS products have all these clippitityesque redundant and self impeding features. I suspect they are born of departmental self justification because at microsoft a specified function is equivalent to a small department full of people. All of these expert software writers to be sure and yet all riding the Redmond gravy train, vying for continuing employment, thrusting their helpful ideas into the MS cooking pot and fighting tooth and nail to see they stay there. The political process distorting the coherence of the OS design process.

And IMHO Drashek must be a bot, no mere human could produce quite such psychotic non sequiturs.

Why do they have a 32bit version?

It's a "new" OS.

Why even bother with a 32bit wide version when you can't even buy a 32bit chip to run it on?

Why force two versions of the code?

Most drivers will be on the affordable 32bit version...

Why the segregation? It makes no sense!!!

Could the 32bit be for COMPATABILITY ,I know I don't own any games that are 64 bit compatable. Many other older programs are 32 bit only.Geeez Gamers buy the most expensive hardware to be able to game! For office use or lip flapping articles/blogs I could do that on my old 486 !

All the computers will come with what ever version is cheapest, then right after they try to sell you the extended warranty they will offer to sell you a key that will let you unlock all the features.

Well all you have to do is to type in the Adminstrator's Password! That's if you would like to install any driver that is not WHQL signed. But you should know that, you're a programmer. So I guess it's a bad idea Windows now finally does it like OS X or Unix does, by asking for an Admin's P/W? Then why the fuss? If they didn't do it like that, you would then say, ooh but it is too easy to hack now, anything can get access to Admin rights locally. You need to evolve as a programmer and stop acting like an ignorant fool just because it isn't done the old way you used to do it.

Microsoft should've killed 32bit with Vista, and it would've made more sense due to the memory requirements of that piece of bloatware. MS are the only ones that can realistically force change with regards to 32/64 bit. If all new computers from the release of vista only came in 64 bit versions, how quickly do you think all the application makers would have true working 64 bit versions out? The last thing we need as an industry (at least for the power users) is to be hobbled at 3gb or ram for eternity. I'm sure those 'intelligent' folk at MS (term used loosely) could come up with a compatability mode for those who want to play things like Quake in a 'good enough' manner even if it has overhead. Running older software in compatability mode on newer machines should work more than fine, after all.

Sorry for the rant, this is one thing that does get on my nerves considering I've been waiting for 64 bit computing to take off for the past 5 years or so, instead of the hobbled XP-x64 and the like :-p

Ohhh dear, Yet another 32bit OS!
No wonder we are still stuck in the dark ages,No true 64bit Windows means no one can be bothered programming other applications for it,Thus we still end up with 32bit crap,By the time the swap happens we will have 128bit processors,lol
I am running Vista 64bit with 6gb ram and I assure you everything runs fine and fast,havent had any game not run,driver issues are virtually gone as there is 64bit versions out there now,64bit programs are slowly coming in now,I wish they would scrap 32bit legacy all together,Force the industry to move forward like the old days,where games like wing commander and the like forced you to update your computer if you wanted to play,I'm sick of them catering to the lower end,just makes everyone slack in the free market,you want the best then work harder for it so you can afford the upgrade,or continue using your old OS and be left behind!
P.S- before you flame no I aint rich thats for sure,I'm classed as low income but I make up for it(overtime,contract work at home) so I can have some of the best gear!
These slackers or tight arses are the ones that hold the economy back in my opinion.
Adapt or die,well it applies to tech as well uopgrade or be left behind!

Microsoft is going to offer Seven “Starter Edition” on netbooks. That’s the crippled version that only lets you launch three apps at a time, but they’re going to offer it cheap to try to avoid too much of a price disparity with Linux preinstalls.

But it hurts their profit to do this. So they need a way to make it easy for the customers to pay more. I think they’re hoping that Windows loyalists will happily pay to make the pain go away, after suffering through a month or so of using Starter.

It's actually really simple and that reason is NETBOOKS. Seriously look at netbook processors, hey look a shiny (32BIT) Atom! If you want shiny 64bit OS's complain to Intel until they sort it out.

oh and Lawrence starter edition is like the OLD starter edition its for 3rd world countries netbooks ship with basic

"1 gig of ram, would have used 512 mb with Ubuntu."

I can't feel the difference in XP once I get past 256 mb ram. It works as snappy on 384 mb ram as it works on 4 gb ram. Back in the day, when a gig of ram cost the world(remember 128 mb sd ram cost a hundred bucks when XP was new) I used to run my machines on 512 mb leaving me some room to manouvre, later when prices fell through the floor I loaded them up with as much as they could take and XP felt no different, most applications ran as they always had, ofcourse -I do run some application that eat ram for breakfast but little has really changed, AfterFX won't really be cool before it as a few hundred gb of ram.

The difference with this upgrade is that all the bits are already in the .wim file and the new key just enables them. With Vista it meant a upgrade installation, i.e. media was needed.

Why still 32-bit? Because even just a couple of years ago Intel for example was still shipping notebook procs (Core, aka Yonah) without 64-bit compatibility. It was only with Core2 that they added x64 support. If they shipped Win7 with x64 only they would be slaughtered in the media by the whiners with old gear.

I have heard that this will be the last x86 OS, which makes sense. By the time the next one comes along there should be enough "legacy" gear with x64 support.

Intel started offering 64 bit support mid way through it's presshot releases, circa July 2004, 1 year after the A64 was released. The core 1 ended pretty much as it started as Conroe followed it quickly, thus it would be relatively reasonable to assume many 'legacy' machines do have 64bit support, taking into account the average lifecycle of 3 years. Even though, the question would be is how many people actually purchase a standalone Microsoft OS to go on their existing hardware, most get the 'latest and greatest' Redmond bloatware when they buy a new machine.

Also, to the poster further up, some of the atoms are 64bit (the 230 and the 330 according to wackypedia) although it's prolly one area that MS should develop a standalone OS, rather than a crippled 'big' OS, that way it can be just 32 bit, and creates better product distinction. This is one area that they will lose out big to the linux lot. They need to mirror Intel's Atom: small, low power, cheap. Linux with it's flexibility can fit this easily, no MS OS's can though, and offering Win 7 starter as their option will just drive OEMs to join the Tux army.