6 ms·
Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google
- jmatt 18y agoGoogle Chrome uses separate processes for each tab / window. So I agree that in some ways it is a gift to Google, but it still encourages use of FF and IE over Chrome. Assuming Google is planning on expanded use of Chrome, this could cause problems for their product roadmap.
- eli 18y agoI would assume that multiple instances of the same processname would count only once, but who knows.
- snprbob86 18y agoI believe that the limit is on the number of "tasks" being performed. If you open Task Manager, there are two tabs: "Tasks" and "Processes". This basically limits the number of application top-level window, but not the number of processes or task bar entries. I don't know anything about how this works, but I'd assume for any level of backwards compatability at all, it has to be an extremely weak restriction.
- Rabidmonkey1 18y agoExactly - this screws over Google Chrome, which is a shame because it's a slick browser (though I personally am keeping a closer eye on the Chromium project, especially since I use Linux). I'm not sure this is ultimately to the benefit of Google at all, as the author indicates, and might even be an offensive tactic against them, seeing as Google is really pushing their browser hard.
- prospero 18y agoAccording to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844 http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844, you "can open as many windows as you want from a single program", which I assume means sub-processes are not counted. Also, IE8 creates separate processes for each tab, just like Chrome. Obviously Microsoft can set whatever double standards they like, but excluding other browsers would pretty much guarantee the Justice Department re-entering the mix.
- snprbob86 18y agoIE8 actually creates a pool of subprocesses which may or may not be used on per tab basis. "It turns out that the vast majority of all IE sessions contain three or fewer tabs. Accordingly, in Beta 2 we try to give users three efficient tab processes. This is contingent on the user’s computer capabilities, but the more capable a computer is, the more processes we will use, up to a point. Adding more processes gives users much better isolation in the event of a failure. If each tab is in its own process, websites are completely isolated from each other." Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/07/28/ie8-and-reliability.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/07/28/ie8-and-reliabil...
- ewjordan 18y agoIt turns out that the vast majority of all IE sessions contain three or fewer tabs. That's only because tab management sucks when you put the tabs along the top of the screen, and the lack of organization means people feel obligated to close things out or re-use them rather than popping new tabs. Since I started using Tree Style Tabs in FF, I'm averaging somewhere around 50 tabs up at a time (of course, I don't even notice this until FF tells me the number as I close out, since they're all collapsed and well organized).
- raquo 18y agoMajority of IE users are 'normal people', they just don't need 50 tabs for their tasks, they don't live in the internets
- graemep 18y agoIt is not just geeks who need to have a lot of abs open in their browser. There are a lot of jobs that involve gathering lots of information, and a lot of that (intranet as well as internet) is accessed through browsers there days. Add to that personal and work usage, amusement etc.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agothanks, tree style tabs is clearly the way the internet is supposed to be browsed (non linearity is the original innovation of hypertext)
- marcusbooster 18y agoI was under the impression that FF was also going the way of separate processes for each tab.
- icefox 18y ago[citation needed]
- marcusbooster 18y agoMy bad. I think I confused the work being done on Prism* with the "Future of Firefox", which of course is a separate product (though it could get integrated). *https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Prism https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Prism
- batasrki 18y agoNot necessarily. As Ed Bott of ZDNet showed, you can have multiple IE windows open with multiple tabs within each. Also, you can have multiple Windows Explorer windows open. Whether this extends to other programs that may spawn multiple processes of the same name or not, that's to be tested. I do think that this "version" of Windows 7 is an extraordinarily bad idea, but then Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if it didn't bundle a bad idea with a good one.
- jasongullickson 18y agoThe key will be how these "applications" are counted and how the restriction is enforced. If it uses operating system primitives such as processes and threads, it's going to be messy. Imagine if you had IE, Word and Outlook open, tried to copy a file and received a "Sorry, that's too many applications!" message...
- eli 18y agoI personally don't think we'll see a whole lot of Windows Starter edition. I think it will mostly be sold in developing countries and on some of the crappier netbooks. You weren't going to have much fun with Excel, IE, Word, and Powerpoint open on an Atom processor with 1 gig of memory anyway.
- sadiq 18y agoI wouldn't be so sure on not seeing much Starter. Microsoft needs the Starter edition to sell to Netbook manufacturers at a price point they'll accept, which is already more than supported Desktop Linux distributions cost (from say Canonical or Xandros). The specs of Netbooks are at the moment restricted by the discounted-XP licensing arrangements from Microsoft (single core Atom processor, 1GB ram, certain size screen.. etc..). Those restrictions can't stay in effect indefinately and what with the pace of semiconductor development, we'll see dual-core processors with a couple of gigs of ram inside the same price/power ratios we've used to with the current generation of Netbooks. It's really lose-lose for Microsoft in terms of Netbooks not cannibalising their existing notebook OS profit. They can't charge more than the $15 or so they're currently charging for XP, for Windows 7. OEMs are gaining more experience with integrating Linux with their hardware and they'll use this as leverage. They can't restrict the specs of machines for much longer, or you'll be able to buy a low-spec Netbook running XP or a far faster Linux-based one for essentially the same price. Not a good outcome either. If they don't restrict the specs, they need to restrict the software and hope they can convert the customers up to a more expensive version of Windows. I personally think the last strategy, despite potentially playing in to Google and Linux's hands, is their best one. The outlook really doesn't look good though.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- eli 18y agoI know you're trying to be funny, but actually there is a Windows XP Starter Edition. It's been around for the better half of a decade. Microsoft sells it in India for far less than a Windows license typically costs in the West.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- acangiano 18y agoAs I commented a few days ago, Microsoft hasn't learned much from the Vista fiasco. Just deliver two versions already: a home one and a professional one. The Pro one would cost slightly more and offer more advanced features that the (average) home user won't care about. Limiting the number of applications you can run is an idiotic move. Foolish. There is no other way to put it, netbook with limited resources or not. If they want to create a Windows 7 Netbook Edition, they should focus on reducing the OS footprint, not imposing limits on what their users can do.
- latortuga 18y agoI disagree with you for the same reason that Apple doesn't allow their OS to run on any hardware but their own. It's a user experience decision. I'm willing to believe that Microsoft put plenty of testing into Windows 7 on suboptimal hardware and determined that performance suffers with more than 3 applications open. I can't cite it at the moment but recall the Google study that compared user satisfaction with response time versus number of results. If it's significantly slower, users will be more unhappy with it and will probably blame Windows and not their applications or hardware, regardless of the reason (this is conjecture, I'll admit, but conjecture based on personal experience with people who blindly hate Windows). In the end, if they limit the number of open programs to three, it's very possible that users will look more favorably upon the performance/stability of Windows 7.
- dhimes 18y agoYour point makes sense, but but I suspect that if they were doing it for that reason the number of allowed processes would depend on the machine and configuration.
- prospero 18y agoThey can do variable configuration for a wide range of machines, or they can create a static configuration for a narrow range of machines. They've done the latter.
- mdasen 18y agoThis is just dead on. Microsoft shouldn't be encouraging people to seek refuge from the OS somewhere else. If Windows 7 Starter Edition is basically just going to allow you to launch a browser, why not use Linux? Linux can use most of the same web applications that Windows can use (save for a less-than-stellar Flash implementation). Microsoft: your turf is the OS. Many people (myself included) still like the OS. If you cripple it so badly, the web will look a lot more attractive and that just won't be good for you in the long-run. I'm still hoping that Microsoft is more just testing the water around this limitation than seriously considering it.
- halo 18y agoThis is a reaction to Linux. This will be sold for basically nothing, and given the choice between Windows 7 Starter and Linux on the same netbook at the same price, most people will choose Windows 7 because they're more familiar with it. This is how they're trying to take on Linux without cannibalising the sales of the full version.
- latortuga 18y agoThis is a much better idea than the one I presented in a different thread above.
- rymngh 18y agoThat was dumb. Now people have more reason to choose Linux-based Laptops.