Comments on: Would you pay extra to run Windows 7 Home Premium on a netbook?

By: wedding dresses

wedding dresses — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:56:00 +0000

No, I probably wouldn’t pay the price of a full home edition on a netbook.

By: Brad Linder

Brad Linder — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:37:00 +0000

This article was written in March, 2009. At the time, Microsoft had stated that this would be a limitation of Windows 7 Starter. Since then, that limitation has been lifted.

By: pieRr0Ur

pieRr0Ur — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:00 +0000

Only 3 programs? Sure ’bout that??

Please clarify soon, thanks.

By: Jojo

Jojo — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:22:34 +0000

LOOK at the ppl leaving comments on here, these are the Ppl that make up the 33% linux OS on netboook users…the general public however will use stater until no longer feasible and then will upgrade..

By: wyscj

wyscj — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:52:06 +0000

Laptop Battery Laptop Battery Laptop Batteries

By: tas7330

tas7330 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:14:52 +0000

How does one upgrade here in Australia?

"Customers who buy netbooks with Windows 7 Starter will also be able to pay for upgrades to Windows 7 Home Premium."

New is that the Windows 7 editions are each an individual media release and not like Vista where all operating systems can be unlocked from one DVD.
How do they plan to offer an upgrade?
Here in Australia we missed out as the anytime upgrade of windows vista never became available. Our only option was to by a much more expensive upgrade media kit.

By: notme

notme — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:46:57 +0000

Matthew: You wrote:
I really take issue with your assessment of Microsoft's response to netbooks, you are either uninformed, a Microsoft shill, or simply love spreading FUD.

Why is there always at least one person on every website who can not post without insulting people they disagree with. Frankly sir, your post is more “shill like” than anything I wrote.

By: lccurtis1

lccurtis1 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:07:55 +0000

well Matt we can go on forever with this issue. I have a degree in computer science I worked in the IT industry for the past 15 or so years and I think your assessment is based on your own opinion and not factual. Since you have been doing this for soooo long provide me with facts in your debate. Until then you are just one person with 1 opinion out of at least a billion who utilize Microsoft Windows and are proud to stake the claim. Also Karl Benz look that name up for me Mr. History LOL

By: matt

matt — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:24:56 +0000

Well, that's like saying "Henry Ford made the horseless carriage easy for the average man, because he sold a bunch of Model Ts."
When you find out Daimler invented the car, and Ford's Model T was merely a matter of marketing and what amounted to slave labor, you then say, "you're beating a dead horse because Ford rules the car market." That my be true, but what does that have to do with your original incorrect statement?

As for the questionable "just because you prefer one over the other does not make it be the better choice for everyone." -- was this meant for me or were you telling this to yourself? I never stated any preference, and even loyal Microsoft software users will readily admit that MSDOS and early versions of Windows (some might say ALL versions) are crap.

I have been a sysadmin running all kinds of operating systems for longer than you have been a user of any system. Even the most dominant players of an era come and go. Even the richest and biggest companies in the industry come and go, hardware and software.

Microsoft is computing's past, a legacy system. Will Ballmer uninstall himself, so the machine can be upgraded, or will he continue to make it run slower and slower, like a virus, until it's not worth the time and money to fix it?

By: David Banham

David Banham — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:21:56 +0000

Linux all the way.

By: lccurtis1

lccurtis1 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:52:45 +0000

Well say what you want the numbers add up to Microsoft being the most utilized OS regardless of who and when it started. Look at the sales number versus Windows, Apple, and Linux. So thanks for the history lesson but your are still beating a dead horse because Microsoft continue to rule on the OS font. So just because you prefer one over the other does not make it true.

By: Eloquescence

Eloquescence — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:40:35 +0000

Here's my two cents:

I used to love Microsoft Win XP. I am an I.T. professional and until Vista I was pretty much a Windows proponent. Vista is actually the reason I am a Linux zealot now. Vista is garbage, Microsoft has learned, and is positioning Windows 7 to be the recovery.

Microsoft is able to command RIDICULOUS prices because of their monopolies with manufacturers. Ever wonder why everything JUST WORKS in the Windows realm when you turn on your shiny new Netbook? The manufacturers are paid by other software developers (McAfee, Roxio, etc.) to put their software on your machines. This allows Microsoft to maintain dominance over Linux through incentives.

So while Linux is "free" it actually COSTS a manufacturer the revenue from third-party developers to put it on there. Which is why you'll continue to see XP on your machines until Windows 7 arrives. You won't catch me with Windows 7 as the only OS installed however, I'll turn that machine into a dual boot very quickly.

Just my two cents.

By: Eloquescence

Eloquescence — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:37:26 +0000

By: Harry

Harry — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:36:19 +0000

Would I pay extra for 7 Home premium vs 7 starter? Yes, but this is not the only choice.

But you must add the good linux distros such asUbuntu, Xandros and Linpus. They are already proven to work on netbooks and getting better stiil with every release. I would then prefer linux over 7 starter, wnd so would most people, I think, for the same price. Except linux would have no per machine fees, and would be even cheaper.

Bottom line: Microsoft is not really a monopoly, and the choice is not between its artificially constructed versions. Once you add the already proven linux the situation is completely different.

By: matt

matt — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:23:23 +0000

"MS made it easy for NON-GEEKS to be able to use computers..."

This displays real ignorance of the history of computing. It was not until 1993, 9 years after Apple introduced the graphical Macintosh OS, that Microsoft successfully stole enough of the Mac's usability for everyday people to run Windows (3.11).

The GUI was invented by Xerox but not marketed to the masses. Apple built their own graphical interface (which is still around, by the way -- I run OS X on my MSI Wind) after seeing what Xerox had built, and marketed it to the masses with the Lisa and then the Macintosh. Apple had a GUI-based operating system on the market in 1983. Microsoft's Windows 1.0 was laughable when it came out in 1985 and didn't improve to what most people consider "usable" until 1993.

Windows' real popularity didn't hit until 12 years after the mass-market GUI, with Windows 95.

Get over Microsoft. Xerox invented ease-of-use and Apple perfected it. Microsoft just built crap to maintain its DOS empire. And Linux is better by a mile than MS-DOS, which was built on a hack job called "quick and dirty operating system" and was meant to provide some of the experience of CP/M.