So as bitched about Windows the other day, and even earlier today on Twitter, I’ve read another article about the Microsoft product that was interesting and pissed me off.
Earlier today, I was a little incensed to read that signs are pointing for Windows 7 to be more expensive than Vista (link). Usually, this type of pricing for a new piece of software is normal. But Windows is loosing serious ground – and Vista was seen as too expensive in a market where computer ownership is becoming cheaper and cheaper (not to mention free if you go with Linux). I really want to build a windows box, but one of the biggest barriers is the cost of a transferable Windows license (only legit licenses here). Why not price it just under Vista? At the very least price it the same…
So what’s my latest gripe? Basically, Microsoft defines the specs that a PC segment can not surpass to get certain deals on the OS per certain segments. I didin’t know this before, but it makes sense… And now, it pisses me off…
Basically the specs Microsoft has set for a machine to qualify for Windows 7 “netbook” pricing is complete crap. Here’s the article (link). Once you exceed those specs, the cost to license windows on that machine goes up.
Why is this a big deal, because it’s hindering the development of a new processor class in the Intel Atom that I happen to think could be a big deal if it were allowed to develop as a mainstream processor choice.
This policy guarantees that there will never be a dual-core Atom in a netbook. That was a specific requirement for me to consider one. Hell, Microsoft even hit reverse in terms of maximum screen size (12.1″ for XP/Vista will become 10.2″ for Win 7).
While we don’t know what the prices for Windows 7 will be, the price for a netbook license of XP is 1/3 of what a normal computer license is. That’s a lot of negative things in a short while for someone who wanted to put a few Windows machines into a stable that’s primarily OS X. Apple could hit pretty hard if they came out with their rumored netbook…