Why limit the user on the number of applications they can have open. Surely even a netbook could handle 4 light application (web browser, email, skype, itunes/WMP).

If it is to much for the computer the user will see that and close an app or two. No need to hold their hand when it comes to CPU usuage

No. Starter edition is unacceptable. I think MS will shoot itself on the foot, because people eventually will get mad with this 3 apps limitation and will format and put a (pirated) XP copy on their machines.

it is done so that you go and buy a better version of windows 7 so M$ can make more money

Microsoft already did starter edition with Vista. If you don't enter your serial and select your version and then just select Starter. The only problem is I could never find any license so I eventually had to crack it. And yes, the starter version is terrible. With the ability to uninstall so many features in Windows 7, I am running Ultimate just fine on my Atom netbook.

windows 7 ultimate runs just fine. windows 7 works fine on everything.

duh

I just hope vendors step up and at least give the option of the better versions of 7 even if they can't drop starter from their lineup entirely. ATM I'm not impressed with software choice on netbooks because XP Home = Blech and the linux distro's that come pre-loaded are a joke

Netbook > $300 = Notebook

You are giving the average consumer way too much credit. The average consumer will open up a shit ton of programs and bitch and moan all over the internet that Windows 7 is slow. The average consumers won't think to themselves "Well I do believe I have too many applications open consuming too much resources I should close one." Yeah right.

^+1

Most people don't know anything about how a computer works, most people don't care to.

If we were just talking about users like those that Frequent Toms, yes, you could trust them to know what their computer can handle.

The average computer user would likely think, "well I've got all these [random programs] open, but only one is on the screen so it should be the only one using up power. Why is the computer running so slow!!!"

And of course, many people think that restarting a computer just means turning off the monitor for a desktop or closing and reopening the lid of their laptop.

However, in regards to all this, I do think this is a rather extreme way of making sure the OS runs smoothly even on basic hardware and that MS should just get rid of starter all together and go with fewer versions of Windows so there is less confusion for the general populace.

How do they intend to "cap" the number of running applications?

UAC popup: "Opening this program will require you to close another from the list below."

maybe instead of doing that, manufacturers should put a warning on the manual saying "Don't open too many applications at the same time, or it will greatly reduce the performance of the computer"

i'd start the legal paperwork right about now.

How many people RTFM?

Nowhere near enough and it's at the point where I wish people had to be licenced to use a computer.

they could have it as one of those little pop ups when you 1st boot up. I know that everyone hates them, but they'd get the point across to average users.

We have a popup for our university computers every time you login that says "no eating or drinking or you get a 2 week account suspension" etc etc. Nobody reads it, ever. Even the staff have drinks sitting next to the computers. You need something far more intrusive.

How about building in spray cans that paint the words "I will read all prompts from my computer" onto their shirt on power up? That should get em listening or at least not using the computer.

"Currently Microsoft provides Windows XP for Netbooks. For Windows 7 they would like to give us Windows 7 Starter Edition for Netbooks."

I think Microsoft should *pay* Samsung to bundle this piece of crippleware into an otherwise perfect netbook.

Otherwise, Samsung should provide users with two options: Linux for $200, and Windows for $250, so people know exactly what they are paying for.

Do people not realize that when they go to a casino or bank ATM, or any other type of terminal that underneath the GUI is for the most part Windows XP. MS is making a Windows 7 replacement for computers that run a company shell application and never see the real OS. Its cost effective for them to write their program and then run it on a cheap OS i.e. Windows 7. They don't need more than 3 apps running.

Besides, Starter edition is great for netbooks given to underdeveloped countries to use for school, etc.

Lighten up people, Starter Edition will not even be offered in mainstream Laptops and Desktops or even retail, only 3 editions: Home, Professional, Ultimate. I don't consider Netbooks a mainstream machine, they may never be more than toys.

Microsoft is coming out with a starter edition so it can try to stop all you losers whining about why windows is o expensive. you want and easy to use OS then you got to pony up the cash for it. you want free then go to Linux and wish you the best of luck trying to get that working the way you want.

hmm 3 apps running huh? so does this mean that someone will install weatherbug (1 app that start at startup) antivirus (hmm two apps) and hmm AIM (uh oh! 3 apps).

God forbid they get any spyware...

Windows machines must install at least 27 spyware apps the second you get on the net. So how can they limit it to run only 3 apps?/

The application limit is actually a Window limit. There can only be 3 windows open at anytime. Background apps do not apply.

and the user goes... is outlook a program?

What if the application has multiple windows? I'm actually interested in how they are implementing this. I was joking before, but now I'm actually curious. Also, some programs run in the background but open windows when needed (anti-virus and chat programs for example).

the thing is, Windows 7 still works slower than XP, slower than Win98, and much slower than WinNT4.0
What we tested so far, Win7beta works fine on a 1,66Ghz processor pc with 2GB of DDR2 400Mhz RAM, and a notebook 5200rpm hd.
It fits also on a 6GB HD.
But this is only the initial installation.
After that many programs will need to be installed that will affect performance, like compression program, anti virus/firewall, perhaps an internet explorer/firefox/.., an office packet, some games, manufacturer specific drivers to 'improve' hardware performance (sometimes to the cost of OS response time), software around hardware like eg: recording or TV software for a TV card, a blueray/DVD playback software, with additional codecs,
recovery software, bloatware standard from the notebook's manufacturer, flash,Java and popup blocker, etc...
Perhaps even some work related softwares like autocad, CAD-CAM, SAP, a warehouse stock program, or other...
How will Windows 7 perform in these conditions?
I know that XP works blazing fast, almost as fast as Win98 or NT out of the box. But that generally is over before even the first service pack is released.

I think even the netbook versions of Windows 7 will be a heavy load for them, if not run from a reasonable fast SSD (at least faster than a HD)!

You're greatly mistaken comparing speed of nt and 98 to xp. ever try a NT4.0 install on hardware thats about 3-4 yrs old? well let me tell you you'll be done in under 10mins.
XP is a dog compared to NT and 98 when it comes to speed and 7 will be the same compared to XP. All it does is drive intel to bring out faster stuff. Also don't think that improvements to windows are just cosmetic and we're not getting and benefit from the slow down. There's a heck of a lot of underlying functionality thats added/improved in various iterations of windows that are largely transparent to the user.

Also don't think that netbooks are standing still. By the time 7 ships there will be running 2.0ghz+ netbooks and you can bet ram capacity will increase too.

Software is designed to keep hardware from seeming any faster than it was 10 years ago, didn't you know? Software "speed" follows the inverse trend of Moore's Law

On a more serious note, what Vista and Win 7 bring to the table over XP is out-of-the-box compatibility with newer devices, while dropping compatibility with older things at the same time (which IMO is a good thing). XP needs SP2 + updates or SP3 just to work with WPA2 encryption, and doesn't even come with drivers for onboard Realtek Ethernet! I forgot I even needed drivers for my Ethernet until I dual-booted with XP again.

If MS increase the APP limit for stater edition from 3 to 6 or something more than 3, it will be better!
there can be ACCIDENTALLY OPENED WINDOWS, like antivirus or anything, like randomizer mentioned.

i'm curious where all the system tray apps would be classed. any average user i come across has a hundred and one things in the system tray that is stuffed there form every peripheral and player and codec installed.

even on a light load i have at least 4 open apps (web, e-mail, im, media player) add 2 sys tray apps(AV,b/w metre). That's 6 for a clean computer with a knowledgeable user (not doing anything); now what happens when I go to do some work add at least 3 more apps and for the average user 10 more system tray items.

Ok now i have gone a bit overboard here comparing my work system to a netbook use. i have a netbook (asus 701) loaded it with xubuntu and it serves me quite well. i wouldn't event attempt to use xp on it never mind win7. Right so i seem to have lost my point. I'll go with: the point of netbooks are to be a ultra low cost ultra portable; this does not mean cripple it to the point of aggravation to the average nitwit user and the geek alike. I really hope this 3 app thing is rumor and not what ship's; while it would certainly create work for me it's not the type of work i'm looking for.