Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#21

Post by snprbob86 »

eli wrote: post #5
jmatt wrote: post #2

Google 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.

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

I 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.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#22

Post by dhimes »

latortuga wrote: post #17
acangiano wrote: post #12

As 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.…

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 respon…

Your 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.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#23

Post by marcusbooster »

icefox wrote: post #14
marcusbooster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[citation needed]

My 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

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#24

Post by ewjordan »

snprbob86 wrote: post #20
prospero wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IE8 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 us…

It 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).

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#25

Post by prospero »

dhimes wrote: post #22
latortuga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respon…

Your 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.

They 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.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#26

Post by catch23 »

latortuga wrote: post #17
acangiano wrote: post #12

As 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.…

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 respon…

> 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 not just limit it to zero? If you don't run anything, it doesn't crash. But all it takes is one buggy piece of software to bring the whole thing down. I don't think reducing the load would help anything. IE7 with a bunch of tabs open can sometimes consume almost 1.5GB of memory...

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#27

Post by latortuga »

catch23 wrote: post #26
latortuga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respon…

> 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 not just limit it to zero? If you don't run anything, it doesn't crash. But all it takes is one buggy piece of software to bring the whole thing down. I don't think reducing the load would help anything. IE7 with a bunch of tabs open can sometimes co…

I can't tell if this is flamebait but I'll bite. Limiting to a small number has the effect of minimizing the probability of performance problems from running out of memory and thereby improving user experience. Limiting to zero obviously makes it unusable.

I see power users being a lot more upset about this limitation than, for example, my mother who uses her PC for email, internet, and word docs. I also think Microsoft has done a poor job in explaining themselves on this change but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#28

Post by raquo »

ewjordan wrote: post #24
snprbob86 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE8 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 us…

It 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…

Majority of IE users are 'normal people', they just don't need 50 tabs for their tasks, they don't live in the internets

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#29

Post by halo »

mdasen wrote: post #13

This 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 y…

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.

Re: Microsoft's Windows 7 Starter is a gift to Google

#30

Post by calambrac »

tomsaffell wrote: post #19
acangiano wrote: post #12

As 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.…

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 ex…

Why would shareholders suddenly jump ship if MS came up with a price for Windows that kept them on netbooks? Wouldn't shareholders be more scared of the prospect of seeing netbooks switch away from Windows en masse? And why would setting OEM netbook pricing to a specific value imply a loss on non-netbook pcs? It's not like they'd be dumb enough to set price $y without a contract forbidding the manufacturer from dropping it on anything other than a netbook.
Post reply on HN