<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Limitations For Some Windows 7 Editions Revealed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/</link>
	<description>Latest Microsoft Windows 7 News, Tips, Themes, Wallpapers &#38; Guides</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:15:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Convert Windows 7 ISO Image With Binpatcher - Windows 7 News, Downloads and Reviews.</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-4/#comment-90855</link>
		<dc:creator>Convert Windows 7 ISO Image With Binpatcher - Windows 7 News, Downloads and Reviews.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-90855</guid>
		<description>[...] New Limitations For Some Windows 7 Editions Revealed [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New Limitations For Some Windows 7 Editions Revealed [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mohey</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-4/#comment-54554</link>
		<dc:creator>mohey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-54554</guid>
		<description>I have installed win Windows 7 Home Basic 16 Bit on a 64Bits laptop. It finds only 3GB of total 4GB RAM. Is it another limitation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have installed win Windows 7 Home Basic 16 Bit on a 64Bits laptop. It finds only 3GB of total 4GB RAM. Is it another limitation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mohey</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-4/#comment-51853</link>
		<dc:creator>mohey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-51853</guid>
		<description>I have installed win Windows 7 Home Basic 16 Bit on a 64Bits laptop. It finds only 3GB of total 4GB RAM. Is it another limitation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have installed win Windows 7 Home Basic 16 Bit on a 64Bits laptop. It finds only 3GB of total 4GB RAM. Is it another limitation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Everton Blair</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-4/#comment-50021</link>
		<dc:creator>Everton Blair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-50021</guid>
		<description>can you please post help requests in the forum - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.windows7news.com/forum/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.windows7news.com/forum/&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>can you please post help requests in the forum &#8211; <a href="http://www.windows7news.com/forum/" rel="nofollow">http://www.windows7news.com/forum/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4gazellegq2</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-4/#comment-50020</link>
		<dc:creator>4gazellegq2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-50020</guid>
		<description>HI . I am currently running Win7 Ultimate 64bit( RC 7100) with some 32bit and very few 64 bit programs. I do hope that more 64 bit programs will be released after or at the same time as the official Win7 release, otherwise it sort of negates having 64 bit. I have asked several  mainstream manufacturers if they will be offering 64 bit programs, odd though, because I havent received any reply. One thing that is odd ( Iam running Windows Live Mail) seeing that Outlook Express is dead, UAC asks for permission every time, which makes it slow to load, even tho its a M/S designed program. Apart from that Win7 is pleasing.However I cant get lower than 40 secs for boot time and I have the auto and start programs down to nearly zero. I welcome comments</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HI . I am currently running Win7 Ultimate 64bit( RC 7100) with some 32bit and very few 64 bit programs. I do hope that more 64 bit programs will be released after or at the same time as the official Win7 release, otherwise it sort of negates having 64 bit. I have asked several  mainstream manufacturers if they will be offering 64 bit programs, odd though, because I havent received any reply. One thing that is odd ( Iam running Windows Live Mail) seeing that Outlook Express is dead, UAC asks for permission every time, which makes it slow to load, even tho its a M/S designed program. Apart from that Win7 is pleasing.However I cant get lower than 40 secs for boot time and I have the auto and start programs down to nearly zero. I welcome comments</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vigilante</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-19111</link>
		<dc:creator>Vigilante</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 01:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-19111</guid>
		<description>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.

Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.

PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.</p>
<p>Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.<br />
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.</p>
<p>PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72909</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 01:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72909</guid>
		<description>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.

Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.

PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.</p>
<p>Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.<br />
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.</p>
<p>PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72910</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 01:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72910</guid>
		<description>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.

Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.

PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.</p>
<p>Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.<br />
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.</p>
<p>PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72911</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 01:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72911</guid>
		<description>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.

Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.

PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PAE support is available (and enabled automatically) in all home versions of windows which have XD/NX bit enabled. The problem is that all 32bit software would still only be able to use the 2gb of memory space allocated to 32 bit programs. Enabling PAE gives 32-bit systems access to a 36-bit address space for programs that have the PAE flag. They are still 32-bit systems, and all 32-bit apps run on the system, unless they have the PAE flag (which few do, requiring recompilation for little benefit), still only have access to 2gb of memory.</p>
<p>Need less than 4gb or ram or have an older system? Go 32bit.<br />
Need 4gb or more of ram? Go 64bit.</p>
<p>PAE was good in theory but bad in practice. The only good thing that has come from having PAE on a home computer system is that PAE is what allows NX/XD bit to operate, which helps keep to prevent software nasties like buffer overflows.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-19074</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-19074</guid>
		<description>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#039;t put it in their non-server OS&#039;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#039;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#8217;t put it in their non-server OS&#8217;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#8217;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72906</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72906</guid>
		<description>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#039;t put it in their non-server OS&#039;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#039;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#8217;t put it in their non-server OS&#8217;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#8217;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72907</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72907</guid>
		<description>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#039;t put it in their non-server OS&#039;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#039;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#8217;t put it in their non-server OS&#8217;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#8217;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72908</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72908</guid>
		<description>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#039;t put it in their non-server OS&#039;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#039;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually that is incorrect. 32-bit windows can actually access up to 36-bit memory address space via PAE support which Microsoft decided was too difficult for driver manufacturers to handle so they didn&#8217;t put it in their non-server OS&#8217;s. You will see 32-bit Win2k3 supports up to 64GB in theory. I&#8217;m not sure if MS artificially limits lower than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Windows 7 Editions more info revealed. &#124; Tech Mania</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8472</link>
		<dc:creator>Windows 7 Editions more info revealed. &#124; Tech Mania</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:52:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8472</guid>
		<description>[...] via                  Rate this: 3.2If you enjoyed this post, make sure you Subscribe to my RSS feed!        Tags: aac, dolby digital, h 264, media experience, Microsoft, netbooks, virtual pc, Windows, windows media player, Windows Seven Categories: Windows Seven   Posted By: Siddanth Last Edit: 27 Apr 2009 @ 12 22 PM Email &#8226; Permalink        Previous        &#160;Responses to this post &#187; (None)&#160;    Post a Comment  Click here to cancel reply. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] via                  Rate this: 3.2If you enjoyed this post, make sure you Subscribe to my RSS feed!        Tags: aac, dolby digital, h 264, media experience, Microsoft, netbooks, virtual pc, Windows, windows media player, Windows Seven Categories: Windows Seven   Posted By: Siddanth Last Edit: 27 Apr 2009 @ 12 22 PM Email &bull; Permalink        Previous        &nbsp;Responses to this post &raquo; (None)&nbsp;    Post a Comment  Click here to cancel reply. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8504</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8504</guid>
		<description>well - no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8211; no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72903</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72903</guid>
		<description>well - no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8211; no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72904</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72904</guid>
		<description>well - no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8211; no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phil</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72905</link>
		<dc:creator>phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72905</guid>
		<description>well - no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8211; no one will ever have more then 640kb of memory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Windows 7 limiting lower versions (naturally) - The DIRT on Tech</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8385</link>
		<dc:creator>Windows 7 limiting lower versions (naturally) - The DIRT on Tech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8385</guid>
		<description>[...] from windows7news.com      No comments for this entry [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] from windows7news.com      No comments for this entry [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-8259</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8259</guid>
		<description>Hahah more like starter lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahah more like starter lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72889</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72889</guid>
		<description>Hahah more like starter lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahah more like starter lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72890</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72890</guid>
		<description>Hahah more like starter lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahah more like starter lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72891</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72891</guid>
		<description>Hahah more like starter lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahah more like starter lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72892</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72892</guid>
		<description>Hahah more like starter lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahah more like starter lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vigilante</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8277</link>
		<dc:creator>Vigilante</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8277</guid>
		<description>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.

As for the 64bit ones... Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.</p>
<p>As for the 64bit ones&#8230; Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72900</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72900</guid>
		<description>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.

As for the 64bit ones... Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.</p>
<p>As for the 64bit ones&#8230; Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72901</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72901</guid>
		<description>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.

As for the 64bit ones... Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.</p>
<p>As for the 64bit ones&#8230; Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72902</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72902</guid>
		<description>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.

As for the 64bit ones... Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>32bit limitation is obvious, 32 bit systems simply cant access more than 4gb of ram.</p>
<p>As for the 64bit ones&#8230; Microsoft probably thinks you should pay for the access to anything higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrstarware</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8270</link>
		<dc:creator>mrstarware</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8270</guid>
		<description>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#039;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#8217;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrstarware</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72897</link>
		<dc:creator>mrstarware</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72897</guid>
		<description>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#039;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#8217;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrstarware</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72898</link>
		<dc:creator>mrstarware</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72898</guid>
		<description>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#039;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#8217;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrstarware</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-72899</link>
		<dc:creator>mrstarware</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72899</guid>
		<description>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#039;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any real reason to limit the amount of Ram windows 7 will support? I mean why can&#8217;t all the 32 or 64 bit editions allow up to 192 GBs of Ram?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vigilante</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8260</link>
		<dc:creator>Vigilante</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8260</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that - who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that &#8211; who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72893</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72893</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that - who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that &#8211; who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72894</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72894</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that - who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that &#8211; who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72895</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72895</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that - who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that &#8211; who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72896</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72896</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that - who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s to prevent folk running it on their kick ass quad processor servers with more memory than some folk have hard disk space. But still, I guess its best to have a high limit like that &#8211; who knows, Windows 7 might still be alive and kicking in 10+ years time when huge amounts of RAM is common.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-3/#comment-8250</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8250</guid>
		<description>One question... who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question&#8230; who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72885</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72885</guid>
		<description>One question... who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question&#8230; who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72886</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72886</guid>
		<description>One question... who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question&#8230; who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72887</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72887</guid>
		<description>One question... who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question&#8230; who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-72888</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72888</guid>
		<description>One question... who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question&#8230; who has 192 gigabytes of ram in their system? lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vigilante</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-2/#comment-8235</link>
		<dc:creator>Vigilante</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8235</guid>
		<description>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. 

Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#039;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.

Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.

And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#039;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.


From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#039;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version... The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. </p>
<p>Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#8217;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.</p>
<p>Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.</p>
<p>And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#8217;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#8217;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version&#8230; The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72881</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72881</guid>
		<description>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. 

Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#039;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.

Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.

And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#039;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.


From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#039;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version... The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. </p>
<p>Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#8217;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.</p>
<p>Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.</p>
<p>And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#8217;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#8217;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version&#8230; The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72882</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72882</guid>
		<description>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. 

Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#039;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.

Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.

And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#039;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.


From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#039;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version... The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. </p>
<p>Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#8217;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.</p>
<p>Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.</p>
<p>And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#8217;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#8217;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version&#8230; The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72883</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72883</guid>
		<description>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. 

Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#039;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.

Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.

And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#039;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.


From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#039;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version... The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. </p>
<p>Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#8217;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.</p>
<p>Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.</p>
<p>And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#8217;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#8217;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version&#8230; The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omoronovo</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72884</link>
		<dc:creator>Omoronovo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72884</guid>
		<description>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. 

Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#039;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.

Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.

And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#039;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.


From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#039;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version... The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving out codec support is the only one there i really think is a bit odd, especially with netbooks based on the nvidia ion platform likely to become quite popular when they are released. </p>
<p>Additionally, who would likely be running basic/starter on a system with more than 8gb of ram? You&#8217;d need at least a Core i7 for that, if not some server hardware or extremely expensive memory modules.</p>
<p>Samba support is really unlikely to be required in the two most basic versions beyond simple home filesharing, which almost certainly will be under 10 people at the same time.</p>
<p>And finally, the virtual xp thing I think is a complete non-issue, most of the hardware running starter or home basic won&#8217;t have VT tech to run the hypervisor anyway.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, microsoft is simply slimming down the features least likely to actually be used in those builds, which I guess would make sense if the entire OS wasn&#8217;t installed my default and then feature-stripped to fit the version&#8230; The codec thing is a bit of a mystery though, unless microsoft removed it to allow them to reduce the cost of the os in the lower price segments, which of course would make sense. Especially since free alternative codecs are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: god</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-8230</link>
		<dc:creator>god</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-8230</guid>
		<description>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. <img src='http://cdn5.windows7news.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: god</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72877</link>
		<dc:creator>god</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72877</guid>
		<description>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. <img src='http://cdn5.windows7news.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: god</title>
		<link>http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/26/new-limitations-for-some-windows-7-editions-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-72878</link>
		<dc:creator>god</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://windows7news.com/?p=1714#comment-72878</guid>
		<description>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Limitation For Windows 7 Basic: only two mouse clicks per hour. <img src='http://cdn5.windows7news.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 40/72 queries in 0.022 seconds using apc
Object Caching 1277/1310 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via cdn5.windows7news.com

Served from: www.windows7news.com @ 2012-02-09 15:15:59 -->
