Technically true. But limiting extraneous services to allow 7 to run well on resource-constrained systems *was* a goal from the very beginning. When netbooks came along, they became the focus of this study.

> many of the services have been updated but it's still based on the creaky, bloated Win32 codebase of Windows 95.

The Linux kernel dates to '91. The BSD core of Mac OS dates back to the 70s. A shiny new OS core is not a feature.

> Turning off all the useless eye candy (which makes it look more or less like XP) helps.

It's *intended* to run on netbooks in no-eye-candy mode. That's how it will ship on netbooks. Eye candy sells — witness the Mac — but by definition no one really needs it. If you need those cycles back, turn it off.

Technically true. But limiting extraneous services to allow 7 to run well on resource-constrained systems *was* a goal from the very beginning. When netbooks came along, they became the focus of this study.

> many of the services have been updated but it's still based on the creaky, bloated Win32 codebase of Windows 95.

The Linux kernel dates to '91. The BSD core of Mac OS dates back to the 70s. A shiny new OS core is not a feature.

> Turning off all the useless eye candy (which makes it look more or less like XP) helps.

It's *intended* to run on netbooks in no-eye-candy mode. That's how it will ship on netbooks. Eye candy sells — witness the Mac — but by definition no one really needs it. If you need those cycles back, turn it off.

Selling computers to the last 2-3 billion people involves increasing their standard of living by several orders of magnitude, getting consistent electric power to them, etc. Microsoft is a very big company, but that's a little bigger than even they can handle.

So Microsoft keeps selling to their existing customer base. Corporations typically like standardizing on things and see no reason to switch, and average consumers just know that they want to be able to buy a copy of Landscape Gardener 3D or The Sims at Target and have it run on their computer.

Is it better than Linux? Maybe not. So use Linux and be happy that it's free and easy — who cares what everyone else does?

What a load of crap. Windows 7 was not “designed from the ground up” to run on netbooks. Netbooks barely came into existence during its initial development (when being designed from the “ground up” would've happened), and MS certainly never thought they'd catch on as they have. Windows 7 wasn't even “designed from the ground up” at all…many of the services have been updated but it's still based on the creaky, bloated Win32 codebase of Windows 95.

Windows 7 beta gives me barely-acceptable performance on my HP Mini 1000. Turning off all the useless eye candy (which makes it look more or less like XP) helps.

I tried out the Windows 7 and found little to impress. Frankly it appears to be another upgrade to sell another upgrade. Every few years Microsoft changes the main OS's interface, breaks a few old programs, sells a new Office product that won't open or save in an old format so that everyone has to upgrade. Upgrading for the sake of Microsoft.

It funny because for nearly all its own products there is a free or open replacement. Most of the need programs are sold by a partner.

If Microsoft wants to make money why don't they do it the old fashioned way. 1. Find new customers, (2 to 3 billion people aren't using computers world wide as of yet.) 2. Come up with some new products.

Only fools pay monopoly prices after the patent has run out. More so when there are competing products that plain just work.

Basic patents on FAT, Word, Excel, etc. etc. etc. have certainly run out. Why! you so willing to be suckered.

One more time FUNNY! If they had dropped their prices over the years they would have avoided all the Monopoly charges. Who's going to complain about a multi-million dollar company that charges $10 for their OS and another $20 for their office products. They would have also been forced to find new products…

Thanks for listening…..

Now consider that Windows and Office license revenue are they two major sources of profit on their revenue statements. What are shareholders going to say when they realize revenue from Windows is only going down from here and Office revenue will be next to get gutted.

As for Nvidia…the reasons could be far more trivial. For example they don't want full featured ARM netbooks to eat into other segments; or manufacturers of ARM/Linux netbooks prefer to have access to open source drivers, which Nvidia won't provide.

Or…Tegra has 3 to 4 times slower CPU than other upcoming ARM solutions for netbooks, which might be not that visible on limited OS & aps of WinCE platform.