No Wallpaper Swapping in Win 7 SE

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what; most of you all should be eating crow! As I recall, I use to be able to tether my PDA to my Bluetooth enabled cell phone and it wouldn't cost me a dime extra... Now not only are you charged for a data plan, you are also charged for a text messaging plan, a MMS plan, a whatever we feel like charging you plan, and on top of that, being charged up the ying/yang for equipment that use to be discounted fairly well.

So personally, everyone complaining about what you could do with an older OS or a free OS is COMPLETELY irrelevant and pointless. Microsoft is in the business to make money, they are not out there to be your friend. That is the same case with the Linux and Apple OS. If you want to use an old OS like Windows XP or Windows 98, go ahead, if you want to use Linux Microsoft is not stopping you. The fact that you can purchase computers or build your own without an OS is quite apparent in the market today as it was yesterday!

I also really don’t care that Microsoft chose to disable background images; the most complains I get from users that complain their computer is slow, is due to an oversized image in their background. Yes your video card has to cache that image along with all the billions of icons people have on their desktop.
I also didn’t have a problem with the three app limit, as again, people tend to open a billion apps on their computer and complain when the system crashes because their system only have 1GB of memory to begin with!

Microsoft is catering to all groups at this point. Should I expect to pay for a Lexus LS fully loaded for the same price a Toyota Yaris is going for? Maybe I should. From what everyone is complaining about, I would love to purchase a high end blah blah blah from you and give you pennies on the dollar for it.
 
Well, there's a lot of ranting here but its obvious that Win7 SE is meant for netbooks. There's a whole bunch of things you can't do with netbooks that are possible with more robust systems.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it you can throw linux or xp on there. Now there is another reason for MS to continue supporting XP, although we know that won't last forever. But I think the demand for XP on netbooks will continue, because usability will be a factor.

Do you think that XP or Win7SE will be more usable, or able to do more things within the limited hardware specs of the netbook?
e.g. 1.5ghz single core, 1 gig ram, limited video, etc.
 
Yeah I agree its more like walking into a dealership and buying a car only to find out it doesn't include a bumper, those are extra.
Are ya really gonna drive outta there without a bumper?

Granted, switching wallpapers and desktop customization are not as important as a bumper. Maybe its more like you bought a car, got it home, thought it would look nice with tinted windows only you can't do that because the manufacturer made the windows in such a way that you can't apply tinting.
 
[citation][nom]NYCGPS[/nom]OMFG the XP thing again? Hello this is Windows 7 hello ?No one going to pay? Yeah I know, because cheapass and morons like you always wants to play without play. I dont get it, people these days always want free lunch. In the 70s 80s, people will pay for what they want/need, without bitching. Stop whinning and just STFU please. Go back to XP and cry.[/citation]

Someone is a bit edgy 😛

Yes, this is Win7, but the Starter edition will have two competitors:
Linux and XP (which will be available with new ULCPCs until June 2010). Both offer more features than Starter, at a lower price point.

Again, it's not about being "cheap" or not wanting to pay. It's about the cost of the OS relative to the cost of the hardware and it's about value for the money. If you spent thousands of $'s on an i7 rig, a couple of hundred more for the best version of Win7 won't make much of a difference... In fact I'm getting at least Win7 Home Premium for my main rig so you can quit with the name calling.

However, spending an additional $200 to get a usable version of Win7 for your Netbook, that itself only cost $250 doesn't make sense. It's not about a "free lunch", it's about common sense. This is why Starter should at least match the feature set of XP Home which is currently shipping with 97% of Netbooks sold. After all, "new" products are supposed to improve on those they replace. So yes, I'll stick with XP on my netbook, but I won't cry, because it works superbly, AND, I can change the wallpaper!!!!111oneone
 
Not a big deal if you ask me. The principal of it is a concern but the actual restriction will be EASILY bypassed. Its one of the beautiful things about not "renting" from Apple. MS doesnt give a crap what you do with the OS once you buy it.
 
If you want an operating system that has rational categories (server with no GUI and desktop with a GUI) for free, be able to change nearly everything in the "desktop environment" and pay nothing for the applications you run on the operating system, you are looking for Ubuntu Linux, not a new version of Windows.
 
[citation][nom]JimmiG[/nom]Someone is a bit edgy Yes, this is Win7, but the Starter edition will have two competitors:Linux and XP (which will be available with new ULCPCs until June 2010). Both offer more features than Starter, at a lower price point.Again, it's not about being "cheap" or not wanting to pay. It's about the cost of the OS relative to the cost of the hardware and it's about value for the money. If you spent thousands of $'s on an i7 rig, a couple of hundred more for the best version of Win7 won't make much of a difference... In fact I'm getting at least Win7 Home Premium for my main rig so you can quit with the name calling.However, spending an additional $200 to get a usable version of Win7 for your Netbook, that itself only cost $250 doesn't make sense. It's not about a "free lunch", it's about common sense. This is why Starter should at least match the feature set of XP Home which is currently shipping with 97% of Netbooks sold. After all, "new" products are supposed to improve on those they replace. So yes, I'll stick with XP on my netbook, but I won't cry, because it works superbly, AND, I can change the wallpaper!!!!111oneone[/citation]

XP has more features ? ... hmm if you wanna talk about "USELESS" features then yea, it has a lot more.

but for most people, the OS is there so their "netbook" will work. Thats it.

The Windows7 Kernel alone is well worth the price, for me at least

if you want out of date Tech. Go ahead, no one is stopping you. and the "you have to pay to play" still applies. Stop crying.
 
This is just petty. I don't know why Microsoft has this insane idea that they have to have different versions of Windows in the first place. Its absurd! They ruin the lower end versions and charge an insane amount for the "normal" versions.

Sure, this is meant to be for developing countries but why on Earth would you want to stop them from changing the background? I mean Windows 3.11 allowed you to choose different background patterns.
 
LOL...WHO on this site would use starter edition anyways? I've seen my fair share of average joes who use PC's and never changed XP's or Vista's default wallpaper. So whoever uses SE probably wouldn't either. Sure it's a lame-ass limitation (especially for OEM's who want to brand the wallpaper with their logo), but why is everyone up in a tizzy about A)an OS they'll never use and B)the barebones version? It's called "Starter Edition" for a reason folks.
 
[citation][nom]LeJay[/nom]This might or might not be true. Tomshardware has been running fake articles each weekend for some time now... Does anyone know if this is real?[/citation]
Tom's fake articles are marked with a "•" on the headline. This one's real. That said...

Who on this site would use starter edition anyways? I've seen my fair share of average joes who use PC's and never changed XP's or Vista's default wallpaper. Probably didn't know how. So whoever uses SE probably wouldn't either. Sure it's a lame-ass limitation (especially for OEM's who want to brand the wallpaper with their logo), but why is everyone up in a tizzy about A)an OS they'll never use and B)the barebones version? It's called "Starter Edition" for a reason folks.
 
[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]Linux. The smart choice.[/citation]

I don't want to offend anyone, but I could very well take your say and add:

Linux. The smart choice. For smart people. And for people who have time on their hands to learn a new operating system.

Windows XP is on 97% of netbooks for this reason. Linux started the Netbook, but as soon as XP became available is stole the scene. Remember the news that customers kept complaining about problems with Linux. People are used to Windows, and they don't have the time for a differente learning curve than the one required to move between XP, Vista, 7. Most people are not tech savy and some really don't want to know.

Linux may nowadays look like Windows, but it isn't really equivalent yet. Microsoft knows all of this. And they take advantage of it. Microsoft will only start having a decent market behaviour when it has real mass market competition. They lowered the price on their Office suite over the years because you can now buy much cheaper office clones and even get the free OpenOffice.org. They will only lower Windows prices if the market isn't buying it OR if there is competition. The ideal would be an OS that can run all Windows programs. Linux is nice but then you need to work with some specific program and you must rely on Wine or such and it doens't always work. A Windows clone like ReactOS would do the trick. Except it will always be running to catch up with Microsoft. I hope I'm wrong some day, or Linux catches up with the mass market user-friendliness and appeal.
 
Microsoft just don't know how to construct/position Windows as a 'Product'. This wallpaper thing will only irritate and alienate customers. Seriously, how much does it cost them to add/enable the functions?
It's like a car company brand and price their products differently based on their colors ONLY!
 
ok, the people that will have the SE version of the OS will probably not even worry about the background. this type of OS is mostly for servers. get it?
 
[citation][nom]Jokemeister[/nom]Seems to me people want everything, pay nothing for it and in fact want to be payed for the trouble of using it. Give me a break. If you pay for the entry level version, you get entry level features. I'm not a MS fanboy, far from it, but for crying out loud, let's be real here.[/citation]
Is that anything like how I paid for Vista Ultimate for the "ultimate extras" only to get no extras or complete crap? I don't want anything for free, because if I did I would torrent it, I want what I paid for. I could do that until Windows XP.
 
"ok, the people that will have the SE version of the OS will probably not even worry about the background. this type of OS is mostly for servers. get it?"

? ..... Ummm... no it is for netbooks...
 
Basically there are two reason for this change:

- They need to make starter crippled somehow, so people will not want/use starter for more systems then microsoft wants to sell it on (like notebooks, microsoft doesn't get much money on netbooks).
- They want people to have a reason to buy an update to a higher version of the os, even on netbooks. the 3 program limit was the first version, now this.
 
MS is just completely ridiculous. That is like buying the a car and being told that you can't do anything to customize it... Unless you purchase the more expensive version.

If MS didn't have a monopoly they wouldn't dream of trying this over-bearing crap.

Mac, linux anyone?
 
You know a lot of people commenting don't understand the reason behind all of the versions of Windows that are out now. Yes, at first we had Windows 3.11 and Windows 95, they were good for business and personal. Then one day the government stepped in and told them to break it up, it is anti-competitive. So Microsoft is going just that, they are offering multiple version of the OS to target certain types of people and businesses.

You can compare Linux and Mac OS to them, but one day those OSes will need to be broken apart by the government too.

Microsoft is currently the world's bank where governments go and pliage them...
 
AndrewMD, great comment, buddy. You are right on.

But I don't think the government will ever try to bully around Linux, at least the Ubuntu strain of it. Canonical is based in Britain, and it's FOSS, there's no tax revenue to be garnered from it (they're foreign AND non-profit). Because, you know, for the government it's ALL ABOUT TAXES. And once the 2.1 trillion dollar budget deficit comes down the pipeline in the form of hyper inflation, taxes will become that much more important. Hats off to Canonical, who remains outside Uncle Sam's reach.
 
[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]Linux. The smart choice.[/citation]

Linux. The smart choice if you want to spend hours in the terminal making drivers work, setting up Wine to play games, and living with the reality that little to no software works natively on my brand new system. The smart choice, if you love wasting your time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom