water cooler :: Bill Gates

This week I started (didn't finish,) to read an article about Microsoft bringing out a lite version of Windows, more affordable (like a dollar to a yank is 16 dollars to a chinaman,) for 'developing' countries.
I stopped reading when I read that the screen resolution limited to 800x600. The word PATHETIC sprang to mind.
I recently worked as an assistant motherboard repair engineer for the second biggest pc manufacturer in China. My boss was a doctor of nanotechnology, a genius (much overused word,) a man from a country thats had a continuous civilization for 5500 years, developing is not a word I would apply to my friend Yijun.
As a kid, Bill Gates started out as a bright geek (not derogatory.)
The question I ask myself is, IF Bill decided/authorized screen resolution limitation (amongst others,) what is the motivation/reasoning?

I'm just wondering how they'd propose to limit it - surely upgrading the drivers from your video-card provider would bypass any restrictions?

I already have a "lite"(ish) version of windows - it's what you get when you strip out any unnecessary crap you can find!

(can easily cut it down to at least a third of a "standard" install - of course, this is still HUGE...)

Even worse...

From http://www.microsoft.com/presspa....FS.mspx

Quote

Simplified task management. With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently.

Who the hell would want a operating system which prevents you opening more than 3 programs. Also it will only run on certain budget CPUs (celeron, duron etc). If you later decide to upgrade the processor (for example to a pentium 4) it will read the processor ID and stop functioning! Similarly if you upgrade the memory to more than 256MB or hard disk to more than 40GB it will refuse to work despite there being no technical reason for this.

As andrew said PATHETIC.

I have to admit that I still use windows along with linux, as I am still learning, but this is complete bs. It really bothers me as a computer enthusiast what has been going on. I am not opposed to paying for quality software, but I dont like being ripped off or taken advantage of. I also dont like to be limited in what I am able to do with the software that I purchased (such as activation codes). I realize that it is a business and to some money is what makes the world go round, but I am of the mindset that I should be able to tweak, share and install with my own discretion. These are some of the things that have recently drawn me to seek out dsl.

Quote

I am of the mindset that I should be able to tweak, share and install with my own discretion

This is the mindset of many people who turn to (or have always been using) Linux, myself included.
However, it's evident that Microsoft sees itself as a business before anything else, a business that must continue to increase revenue. Its software users are not 'users', they are 'customers'. Everything MS makes available is a 'product' rather than a 'tool'. Profit and licensing are top priority.
It's my opinion that Microsoft sees these limited products as introductory or trial software, hoping that they will get customers accustomed to them, or even dependent upon them, and will continue to purchase in the future, hopefully the full OS instead of the limited versions.
Microsoft also has been very concerned about the laws in China, which apparently do not forbid software piracy. It is their hope that providing a cheaper alternative will intice people to buy rather than 'steal'.

Next Page...
original here.