Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

I 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.

Why would MS put even more resources into an OS that they're selling for less than the full versions? The app limit is probably very easy to implement and therefore doesn't cost a ton, thereby allowing them to license the starter version for cheap.

I do agree however that an app limit is silly, however I can't see MS doing a 'Firefox' project to create a lean version of Windows that they'd sell cheap. Doesn't make business sense.

You may be right in saying they haven't learned much from Vista, but I think your 'just have two versions' argument is overly simplistic.

Today MSFT sells Windows Home/HP for $x to lots of OEMs, who don't like paying that price, but don't have much choice, as their users 'want' Windows (want='think they want, because they dont know anything else'). OEMs say to MSFT 'we wont pay $x for Windows on netbooks, it's too expensive, sell it to us for $y'. But if MSFT sells Windows for $y for any PC then they lose $(x-y).(# of non netbook PCs), which would massively hit their share price TODAY. They can't do that, so even though they know that one day they will have to give up the $x price they do what they can to keep that price as long as possible (aka cash-cows are for milking, not slaughtering). So they invent a new product, that no self respecting OEM would sell on a decent PC, slap a $y price tag on it, and say to the netbook buyers, 'there you go, a version of windows for $y', while they keep selling the main version for $x. The fact that that version sucks is painful for MSFT, but not as painful as selling all Windows for $y for all PCs, nor as painful as being seen to do nothing in the netbook market.

Summary: this isnt about MSFT being dumb, its about MSFT keeping their cash-cow alive so that the share-holders don't slaughter them today, even if it may be bad for long-term (~5 years) shareholder value. (x >> y)

I 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.

This 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.

I would assume that multiple instances of the same processname would count only once, but who knows.

Exactly - 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.

According to 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.

I was under the impression that FF was also going the way of separate processes for each tab.

Not 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.

The 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...