Microsoft announced that they have removed the netbook restrictions that previously prevented OEM and ODM from installing any version of Windows 7 on their netbook. The lifted restriction means OEM and ODM can install Windows 7 starter on a netbook, and that the three application restriction has been removed as per consumer's request."OEMs and ODMs have the choice to install any version of Windows on a netbook," a Microsoft UK spokesperson said. "[But] Starter is an entry version and doesn't have many of the consumer or business features. The three application limit isn't there anymore."
Windows 7 Starter and Home Basic variety only come in 32bit versions and are missing a variation of features from the higher end versions. Some of the features missing from Windows 7 Starter include:
- Aero Glass
- Taskbar Preview
- Aero Peek
- Desktop personalization
- Fast user switching
- Multi-monitor support
- DVD playback
- Support for domains and XP Mode
- Windows Media Center
Home Basic also lacks some key Windows 7 features including Aero, Taskbar Preview, Internet Connection Sharing and some other features. Windows 7 Home Basic will not be sold in the US, Europe and other established markets, while Windows 7 Starter will be available through OEM.
Retail stores and manufactures will be able to strip some of the cost off their netbooks using Windows 7 Starter or Home Basic. Microsoft will now have two entry level SKU versions of Windows 7 in some markets.
"month's'" means more than 1. So, yes, two would work.
Ahh I see, Gotchya
Yep, Microsoft confirmed all editions of Windows 7 will work fine on netbooks in February 2009: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009...ok-question.ars
But seriously, ever test I have seen shows W7 slower than XP, sure it is faster than Vista, but that ain't saying much. I understand the new interface is an improvement, but does it really matter on a
But seriously, ever test I have seen shows W7 slower than XP, sure it is faster than Vista, but that ain't saying much. I understand the new interface is an improvement, but does it really matter on a
Windows 3.1 is way faster than XP, so does that make it the god OS?
Here's your problem. You're relying on 3rd party benchmarks too much, which is a common yet fairly stupid way of gauging performance of something. Try it yourself and see.
Remember, benchmarks can only measure so much.
At first glance, it appears that they WILL be selling those two editiion everywhere, but then you get to the end, it says they won't sell them here. Which is it?
home basic on devices that otherwise would still be shipping with XP... but nothing "modern" (even eee pcs have dedicated graphics chips, even if they're intel based and share ram - still would benefit from aero-based Desktop rendering) so it's very unlikely we'll be seeing nearly any home basics as well.. I'm getting the feeling like Microsoft's going to heavily discourage this on the OEM level, weather it gets traction is another story, though, we'll have to wait till next month to have any real idea.
I find it confusing that on the bottom of your main page, "Previous" is on the right side, and "Next" is on the left side. Isn't that a bit backwards? Everything else (browsers, installers, wizards, etc) uses a left arrow for "Back" and a right arrow for "Forwards".
I find it confusing that on the bottom of your main page, "Previous" is on the right side, and "Next" is on the left side. Isn't that a bit backwards? Everything else (browsers, installers, wizards, etc) uses a left arrow for "Back" and a right arrow for "Forwards".
No, it makes sense. Previous as in 'previous stories before these'. The words should probably be different 'earlier' and 'later', though.
The response to the 2nd comment in this thread addresses this.
No they can't. "OEMs and ODMs" can.
Anyone could have told you that Microsoft had no intention of preventing netbooks from being installed with the higher versions of Windows that have the better profit margin. The only restrictions I'd heard of before was how crappy a netbook had to be to qualify for Starter.. that restriction may be gone now, which is probably easier for everybody.
It is not to be confused with "Basic" or "Classic" (non-composited) visual styles.
At first it was impossible to change the desktop picture on Windows 7 Starter, they've changed this?
It doesn't have desktop personalization feature so no. There is a manual over ride I have seen, if it works or not, that I don't know, but I have seen guides.
Possibly for use of less resources, memory, processing power, etc. Maybe it's slightly faster since it doesn't do as much.
What is a complete joke is that some consider this a "limitation". I guess I've been artificially "limiting" myself to a solid black desktop since Windows 3.0.
Either way, my desktop is always covered in windows. If I wanted to look at pretty pictures, I'd buy a picture frame.
Microsoft probably realized that no one in their right mind would be running Home Basic x64.
You could manually disable the same things that consume resources in the other editions though (like Aero, taskbar previews, etc.).
Who needs some pretty Aero crap, Taskbar Preview, Aero Peek, Desktop personalization, Fast user switching, Multi-monitor support, or DVD playback?
Well, the multi monitor support would've been alright.
Who needs some pretty Aero crap, Taskbar Preview, Aero Peek, Desktop personalization, Fast user switching, Multi-monitor support, or DVD playback?
Well, the multi monitor support would've been alright.
Aero is faster than a CPU rendered UI, but to each his own.
my
netbook I used it 2 ways on the road with me then when
I was at home I connected it to a monitor and keyboard mouse it's a desktop that weighs 2 pounds and I can take it with me
But to each his own I guess they figure of
you're geeky enough to own a netbook you'll know hownto get ultimate on it with all the house partys
I've never seen a level entry user want / know what dual-monitor is. Most people who see my setup are confused how two monitors work.
Personally I'm still very happy with XP on my $250 throwaway netbook. It does everything I need, and is far less complex. I am able to install XP multiple times on the same partition , with a simple tweak to an answer file. I wouldn't bother trying that with Vista. Vista / Windows 7 might be for some folks, but the way I use my PC, these later versions of Windows are over complex, with extremely messy directory structure and bizarre permissions and file links.
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/03/28/su...tarter-edition/
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/03/31/co...than-i-thought/
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/06/17/oe...starter-either/
I really like that last one...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.