Windows 7 Starter is gimped!

RangerXML

RangerXML

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
6,402
I thought it would of at least been a scaled back version of Home Premium 32-bit, but seriously its about as bare as it gets. No backgrounds and no themes of any sort (unless you call high contras mode as a theme). You have to go into the registry to change the background. I mean I understand a scaled back OS, but Windows 7 is going a bit overboard. Since most features in Home Premium won't work as is on a netbook, but in order to add themes, media center, access homegroup and the ability to change backgrounds cost you $80 with an Anytime upgrade, the full OEM version, not an upgrade, costs about that much.

Heck, I'd of been happy with the ability to change backgrounds, change the taskbar color and access homegroup, but no, I have to spend $80 bucks...luckily I have a technet account:p Still I think that is a crime!

On the bright side, if you want your basic, no frills OS, Windows 7 Starter is your OS. They should be selling this OS for $25, I bet there would be a market for it.
 
Last edited:
anytime update has never been worth it from any version from when i looked into it on vista. Its usually cheaper to get the oem version.

and it probably is $25 (or less) to........ dell.
 
It's gimped because if you're able to post on this forum, you should never be able to get a copy.
 
This reminds me of the other thread where the guy is complaining that Home Premium is a rip-off because it won't support dual socketed processors.

Do people simply not have brains enough to go do research and discover this stuff anymore? Who would build a dual Opteron box, a dual Xeon box, and another dual socketed processor machine and think "I'll toss the regular average Joe (inside joke) edition of XP/Vista/Windows 7 on it and it'll be fine because it supports dual core processors..." without thinking that dual core doesn't mean dual socketed processor?!?!?!

I wonder about those people sometimes... I really do.
 
Why do people complain of a version being gimped, when the next one up has what you need..

this version isnt made for most people,. it has a specific market, they wanted to keep the price down so they left things out, they dont need homegroup and other crap, get over it.


The problem is people want to pay as little as possible to get as much as they 'think' they 'deserve', you dont deserve jack, you get what you pay for, if one version doesnt suit you, you find the one that does.
 
sub.genius said:
"I'll toss the regular average Joe (inside joke) edition of XP/Vista/Windows 7 on it and it'll be fine because it supports dual core processors..." without thinking that dual core doesn't mean dual socketed processor?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Both machines have two processing cores. Why should there be a difference? As far as the OS is concerned they are identical. It's a completely artificial crippling. I'm not really surprised or outraged (MS has always done this), but I totally see his point. I can understand licensing on a per-core basis (though I disagree with it), but per-socket is totally artificial and stupid.

From an MS talk on the Windows 7/2008 R2 platforms I saw at the local ICC a couple days ago, they will indeed be selling starter edition preinstalled on netbooks in the NA market (up to the OEM of course). The MS tax is going to become more visible as users are 'forced' to pay to upgrade from Starter on their netbooks.
 
My friend got a netbook and I told him to get one with Windows 7, he got one with Starter. I have Starter on in my Technet account, but never played around with it. I think what go me to go off was just the pain it is to just change the background and then I tried to connect to my homegroup to share some videos I had. I mean, he could of gotten the netbook with XP and gotten to keep some very basic functionality. I don't use my copies of Home Premium anyways so I'll just dump that on there.

And the Anytime upgrade from Starter to Home Premium is $80, that is a ripoff. I do also believe that selling Starter for dirt cheap that some people could really use that, like really old PC.
 
The question is do people who buy the low end netbooks care? I do wish the Microsoft hadn't crippled it so much, at least put Aero and themes back in.
 
sub.genius said:
This reminds me of the other thread where the guy is complaining that Home Premium is a rip-off because it won't support dual socketed processors.

Do people simply not have brains enough to go do research and discover this stuff anymore? Who would build a dual Opteron box, a dual Xeon box, and another dual socketed processor machine and think "I'll toss the regular average Joe (inside joke) edition of XP/Vista/Windows 7 on it and it'll be fine because it supports dual core processors..." without thinking that dual core doesn't mean dual socketed processor?!?!?!

I wonder about those people sometimes... I really do.
Click to expand...

it's quite different, actually. You apparently didn't read the other thread very thoroughly. MS doesn't state anywhere what flavors support what hardware setups, which was the main gripe, which was noted half dozen times throughout the thread :rolleyes:
reading comprehension ftl!
 
j-sta said:
it's quite different, actually. You apparently didn't read the other thread very thoroughly. MS doesn't state anywhere what flavors support what hardware setups, which was the main gripe, which was noted half dozen times throughout the thread :rolleyes:
reading comprehension ftl!
Click to expand...

But it had been that way since even before XP.... :rolleyes:
 
criccio said:
But it had been that way since even before XP.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

wait... wait wait wait. So you're comparing pre-XP to Win7?
wait.. how many flavors of Vista and 7 are there? How many flavors were pre-XP?

things have changed.
they cannot be clearly compared.

oh yeah, and this EULA clip from HP:
2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.

c. Licensed Computer. You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed
computer at one time. Unless otherwise provided in these license terms, you may not use the software on any other computer.
Click to expand...

you may use the software on up to two processors. Does that CLEARLY state both processors can and will be utilized? Nope. Does it SOUND like both processors can be utilized? Yup.
Are they both utilized? Nope.
 
j-sta said:
wait... wait wait wait. So you're comparing pre-XP to Win7?
wait.. how many flavors of Vista and 7 are there? How many flavors were pre-XP?

things have changed.
they cannot be clearly compared.
Click to expand...

Huh?

XP Home - 1 CPU only
XP Pro - 2 CPU's

Vista Home - 1 CPU only
Vista Business - 2 CPU's

Win 7 Home - 1 CPU
Win 7 Pro - 2 CPU's
 
It's gimped on purpose, hence "Starter Edition" :rolleyes:

/thread.
 
criccio said:
Huh?

XP Home - 1 CPU only
XP Pro - 2 CPU's

Vista Home - 1 CPU only
Vista Business - 2 CPU's

Win 7 Home - 1 CPU
Win 7 Pro - 2 CPU's
Click to expand...

so you're completely ignoring the different flavors of Home?

and let me post this EULA clippit from Home Premium again since you didn't read it.

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.

c. Licensed Computer. You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed
computer at one time. Unless otherwise provided in these license terms, you may not use the software on any other computer.
Click to expand...

so... now how is it they compare?
 
keenan said:
Both machines have two processing cores. Why should there be a difference? As far as the OS is concerned they are identical. It's a completely artificial crippling. I'm not really surprised or outraged (MS has always done this), but I totally see his point. I can understand licensing on a per-core basis (though I disagree with it), but per-socket is totally artificial and stupid.

From an MS talk on the Windows 7/2008 R2 platforms I saw at the local ICC a couple days ago, they will indeed be selling starter edition preinstalled on netbooks in the NA market (up to the OEM of course). The MS tax is going to become more visible as users are 'forced' to pay to upgrade from Starter on their netbooks.
Click to expand...

Because a PROCESSOR is defined as the CPU, not the damned cores sitting on the die. Multi-core devices nowadays are still consider a PROCESSOR, not PROCESSORS - it doesn't matter how many cores you put on the DIE, it's still a PROCESSOR, period.

I get it, so do others, why some people don't is simply beyond my ability to fathom.

A Core 2 Duo PROCESSOR, a Core 2 Quad PROCESSOR, an AMD Phenom dual/quad core PROCESSOR. That's how it works - you don't call it a Core 2 DuoS, now do you?

Processor = 1 socket, simple.

You and others are interpreting the word PROCESSOR incorrectly. The PROCESSOR is made up of a CPU DIE that can have multiple cores on it, from 1, 2, 4, soon to be 8, and perhaps a shitload more as time goes by but it is still one PROCESSOR.

Hence, the EULA is accurate in that respect. The issue here is that Microsoft apparently just threw a blanket EULA on all the editions of Vista/Windows 7 and people are being little shits about interpreting it the way they want because of a damned technicality. Home Premium and Basic and Starter's EULA should say "You may use the software on one processor on the licensed computer at one time." but realistically that just sounds stupid in the first place, kinda like some of the reasoning going on around here with this.

Get over it.
 
Wow, go figure that an OS designed for Netbooks, is not feature rich as the other implementations of the OS.
Should probably make a post about this, letting people know that Microsoft made a less involved operating system for systems that run on limited hardware specs.
 
sub.genius said:
Because a PROCESSOR is defined as the CPU, not the damned cores sitting on the die. Multi-core devices nowadays are still consider a PROCESSOR, not PROCESSORS - it doesn't matter how many cores you put on the DIE, it's still a PROCESSOR, period.
Click to expand...
This is really down to colloquial usage. A processor core is a processor by the classical definition. The distinction is merely whether they are packaged together or not, which is irrelevant to everything but how you buy them and how they're mounted on the board. It's two processors in one package. Yes I get it, and yes it's stupid.

You and others are interpreting the word PROCESSOR incorrectly. The PROCESSOR is made up of a CPU DIE that can have multiple cores on it, from 1, 2, 4, soon to be 8, and perhaps a shitload more as time goes by but it is still one PROCESSOR.
Click to expand...
Early processors took many dies and many packages. Does that mean you call a single one processors? No. A processor is processing unit. If you put many of them in one package, you have a multiprocessor machine. You and the marketing teams are redefining the word from its original meaning, not me. Its meaning today comes down to context, and in the context of an operating system, only the original 'processing unit' definition makes any sense.
 
Early processors took many dies and many packages
Click to expand...
Which? All processors from the Windows era (386->present) were on a single die. Your definition of processor is wrong, and sub.genius is right.
 
Just FYI though, I'm running Win7 Professional on an Acer Aspire One netbook with an Atom n270 and 1.5GB of RAM, and it runs great :).
 
Arainach said:
Which? All processors from the Windows era (386->present) were on a single die. Your definition of processor is wrong, and sub.genius is right.
Click to expand...

LOL if you consider a 386 an early processor. I mean pretty much everything prior to 8080. Which means basically every computer prior to 1976.

The fact that two or twenty processors are on the same die is an implementation detail, and not relevant to the definition of the word. There is also no logical difference; as far as the operating system is concerned a processor with two single-core sockets is exactly identical in every way to a system with a single dual-core socket (with the minor exception that some operating systems will interrogate the processor to discover if there is shared cache and try to put related threads together - but this is not required and only relevant when you have multiple multi-core sockets).

Is the term 'symmetric multiprocessing' wrong as well?

I will accept that the definition of CPU applies to a single package, however a 'processor' is a logical entity.
 
Last edited:
Arainach said:
Which? All processors from the Windows era (386->present) were on a single die. Your definition of processor is wrong, and sub.genius is right.
Click to expand...

ummmm.... the 386 required a separate chip for floating-point calculations, hence the i387 math co-processor. ;)
 
j-sta said:
ummmm.... the 386 required a separate chip for floating-point calculations, hence the i387 math co-processor. ;)
Click to expand...
And the FPU was optional. It was an accessory to the main processor itself.
LOL if you consider a 386 an early processor
Click to expand...
LOL if you think the 8080 is at all relevant to the definition of 'processor' in any modern context.,
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Just FYI though, I'm running Win7 Professional on an Acer Aspire One netbook with an Atom n270 and 1.5GB of RAM, and it runs great :).
Click to expand...

^

I've got an Aspire One w/ the N280 and 1 gig of RAM, and Win 7 Pro is running just dandy. You really don't have to go with the (obvious and long known) reduced functionality Starter.
 
Arainach said:
And the FPU was optional. It was an accessory to the main processor itself.
Click to expand...

This was the origin of Intel fucking people over long ago, actually. The i387 co-processor turned out to be <drumroll please>...

An i386 with a single micro-circuit closed instead of open, enabling the on-die FPU that existed in the i386 but was disabled on purpose so Intel could then sell customers yet another i386 but that one was "FPU-enabled."

When I first found out the details of that I was so pissed for a lot of reasons - and no I never bought an i386 machine myself out of pocket. If I had, and I spent thousands of bucks on a "speed demon" i386 powered PC that "required" the i387 to do proper math functionality, and I went out to buy the i387 and discovered "Hey, wait a second, this is the same fucking processor with a switch thrown inside it... what a rip-off..." I'd have gone postal before going postal was ever known as going postal, I assure you.

Alas, they got away with it... it's like buying a Ferrari without an engine in it, and to get the real Ferrari engine you have to buy another full car with engine to make it happen. Insane...
 
RangerXML said:
I thought it would of at least been a scaled back version of Home Premium 32-bit, but seriously its about as bare as it gets. No backgrounds and no themes of any sort (unless you call high contras mode as a theme). You have to go into the registry to change the background. I mean I understand a scaled back OS, but Windows 7 is going a bit overboard. Since most features in Home Premium won't work as is on a netbook, but in order to add themes, media center, access homegroup and the ability to change backgrounds cost you $80 with an Anytime upgrade, the full OEM version, not an upgrade, costs about that much.

Heck, I'd of been happy with the ability to change backgrounds, change the taskbar color and access homegroup, but no, I have to spend $80 bucks...luckily I have a technet account:p Still I think that is a crime!

On the bright side, if you want your basic, no frills OS, Windows 7 Starter is your OS. They should be selling this OS for $25, I bet there would be a market for it.
Click to expand...

facepalm8bu0.jpg


Your "news" comes to the surprise of no one.
 
Arainach said:
And the FPU was optional. It was an accessory to the main processor itself.LOL if you think the 8080 is at all relevant to the definition of 'processor' in any modern context.,
Click to expand...

If processors prior to the 8080 shouldn't be called processors because they're not in a single package, what should we call them?

Your definition comes down to the physical organization of the device. It's a poor definition, it doesn't fit old technology, and it doesn't fit potential future technology either. It doesn't fit with how the devices are logically seen in software. It doesn't fit with past usage. Why exactly does the package or the fact that two processors are in one package matter? Think about this in a conceptual manner, not a physical one. There is no conceptual difference whatsoever between several processors on a die and several processors on a board, absolutely everything is the same, the only difference is they are not physically packaged together and they are physically more distant.

The 'logical processor' definition is the general, canonical one. Yes it gets used in the physical manner as well, but this is imprecise and useful only in the limited context of assembly and board-level details. It certainly doesn't make any sense to talk about 'processors' in the context of an operating system and actually be referring to a processor package, since the operating system is not necessarily even aware of the physical layout of the system.
 
the operating system is not necessarily even aware of the physical layout of the system.
Click to expand...
WINDOWS is. So it makes perfect sense to make that distinction when talking about WINDOWS licensing.
 
We all know what the point of starter was, it was to create a product that could be sold for next to nothing to OEMs so they could drive down the prices of their netbooks. M$ must somehow protect this version from being to close to home premium or no one bothers to purchase home premium. By the logic you guys have there should be no such thing as black edition processors, ultimate versions or any other up selling technique. They need to make money and to retain market share, they need an ultra low priced OS for ultra low end computers where they would be competing with free linux. If you hate it so much then buy the upgrade or xp.

It may not seem like a value but the companies need to sell items with varied prices it turns out from a supply side that it cost almost nothing to add features you have already made but then if you did that and just made a single product the average price would be higher then windows starter. For instance apple could not make money selling snow leopard for 30$ but they can make money because they charge you outrageous prices for their computers. So instead of complaining maybe you should appreciate that they bothered to make a low cost option which saved you money. If you do not appreciate that then do an upgrade or buy a linux based netbook. Basically all the people who purchase home premium subsidized the price of your starter so really you have nothing to complain about. Just like all the people who purchase high end processors subsidize the price of the lowest end chips.
 
Arainach said:
WINDOWS is. So it makes perfect sense to make that distinction when talking about WINDOWS licensing.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, because even though Windows is aware of it, that is only so that the licensing scheme described can be employed. It makes no other difference whatsoever to the way the operating system operates.

As far as any important part of the operating system is concerned, a processor is a processor regardless of how it's packaged, and they're treated exactly the same in every way.
 
keenan said:
No it doesn't, because even though Windows is aware of it, that is only so that the licensing scheme described can be employed. It makes no other difference whatsoever to the way the operating system operates.

As far as any important part of the operating system is concerned, a processor is a processor regardless of how it's packaged, and they're treated exactly the same in every way.
Click to expand...

There's SOME difference at the driver level I believe. That said you are correct that the distinction is artificial but on a workstation, except at the very highest end its irrelevant these days. This was a licensing scheme conceived of in the days of single core CPU's and has no meaning today for 99% of computers sold today as they are are multi-core.

So its simply an anachronism that's simply doesn't affect many people anymore..
 
exactly, how many home users have multi-socket boards, those are usually meant for workstations or servers, thus you would buy a workstation OS, being a Pro version usually.
 
Come on, I was thinking along the lines of Vista Home Basic, not XP Embedded. Got homegroups to work!
 
" Since most features in Home Premium won't work as is on a netbook,"

I am running Windows 7 Pro on an Acer Aspire One with no problems and everything is working just fine.

pcgeek11
 
dual socketed on windows starter? those are usually used on unix server farms running critical apps, NOT windows starter edition LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top