|
scottie said: That sounds pretty bad to me If you can find the quote I would be interested to hear it. However, even if it mentions antivirus, I still suspect it will be a white list I hope you are right, but I do not have confidence that enough companies will do so. Take the Vista capable thing for example - hardware vendors and shops sold computers under the 'Vista Capable' label despite it being obvious that they weren't, simpy because they knew MS would be blamed, not them. I agree that MS has made every effort to make this information available on the internet, but most people will not do enough research to discover this Netbooks do not have 10% marketshare, therefore one (or both) of those statements is incorrect I disagree, and have predicted that I shall be proved right after 7 is released. We shall see You are incorrect, I did do research Quote or it didn't happen. I have already admitted that I was initially unaware of XP Starter, but I believe this is a different situation due to the worldwide release of 7 Starter Agreed - if someone were to read the thread title and not the 1st post they would get the wrong impression. I hope no-one did this however Once again, quote or it didn't happen. It changed once when I found out about the existance of XP/Vista starter. I would hardly say I have been inconsistent in this thread. Also, this colour is gross.
|
First the quote for anti-virus "The three-app rule includes applications running in the background, meaning that a user running Windows Messenger and Skype, for example, could only use one further application on their machine. Antivirus software is excluded from the app count." (PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/246859/windows-7-a-nonstarter-on-netbooks.html). Microsoft also has every reason in the world to be very generous with what is or is not classified as an anti-virus program. I imagine the company will just have to submit the program for approval and work from there.
Now for XP starter "XP had a starter version, yes. It was capable of running many programs at once, limited only by the specs of the computer," (scroll up). Your initial complaint seems to be the 3 app limit. Then you go on to it being a problem of Home premium being more expensive and just a way to jack up the cost while not giving any prices for these potential OSes. Then you go on about how it will be pushed onto consumers and make them suffer through it which, somehow, you think a corporation as successful as Microsoft would see as a good plan. I have also been sore and crotchety all day so I might just be attacking something thats not entirely there. I'll apologize later if I think thats the case.
Now, I would agree the Vista capable fiasco can be partly attributed to hardware vendors who are not getting taken to task for it in the court of law. Unfortunately for them Microsoft can due it through the old wys of bullying and dickishness. The problem with fighting a monopoly is you have no alternatives when they start being dicks. Microsoft will be the ones liable if the 3 app limit is not correctly advertised, which gives them all the incentive in the world to force everyone who licenses it to clearly state that limitation. Refuse to put the limitation, and you don't get that version of Windows. Simple, legal, and smart.
This could be a combination of factors. Microsofts internal research could have a different number, they could be attempting to predict the expanded market, they could be planning on a limited push outside of the netbook market or it could be the PR guy had his hard numbers wrong. I cannot speak to the truth of it all as I don't have a list of hard numbers, nor the Microsoft Windows 7 master plan in hand.
Oh and more people will read the thread title than will read the initial post. No one clicks on every thread they see. Honestly, I almost didn't click because I knew it was talk of the Starter edition, but wanted to make sure nothign was being blown out of proportion.
