3's a crowd

Earlier today I was told that the 'starter' (read: cheap/shit) version of Windows 7 would limit the user to only 3 active applications at any time. My first reaction was "yeah, bullshit. I know Microsoft is that stupid, but they can't be that stupid". Microsoft, unfortunately, IS that stupid.
Right now I guarantee that you have at least 3 applications open. Personally, I have Safari (browser), iTunes (music), Preview (pictures). On my PC I usually have Steam, Windows Picture Viewer, Firefox open, and if I want to play a game for instance, I would be out of
luck.

This, kids is why we proofread our statements, especially when we're SELLING THEM.

Combine all of that with the estimated price of Windows 7 'Starter edition' of $85 and you get pissed off businesspeople. Microsoft has said that this is intended for netbooks and PC built on the cheap. On its face that seems like a fairly reasonable excuse until you think about the types of 'cosmopolitans' that own netbooks. Generally when observing the computer of somone sipping a soy latte one can find a word processor (for writing 'novels'), a web browser (for plagiarizing F. Scott Fitzgerald), a Picture Viewer (for copying the cover from 'The Great Gatsby' ) and of course Limewire (for pirating music) open on one's computer. Those who can count will realize that this is 4 applications and that one will have to go. Some would say "some people don't use limewire/iTunes and instead use iPods or (God forbid) Zunes; and in doing this they will not be using 4 applications...". My point still stands however when you consider the number of people who use Outlook. This being the case, I would steer most people away from this ripoff.

How secure is "Life without walls" anyway?

According to Microsoft, this is totally secure...
I wish I was kidding...

So Microsoft has unveiled it's latest PR move to move units of Windows 7. Apparently Windows 7 is more secure than both Mac OS X and Linux. My first response to this was O RLY NUB? I will agree that arguing Mac VS. PC does eventually come down to immature squabbles over who's computer looks better. I do however feel totally and completely right in saying that this statement is absolute bullshit.

With the current number of Mac viruses hovering somewhere in the nebulous regions of "none at all" and "If you're the most unlucky person in the world you'll get this", this was possibly one of the worst PR decisions that Microsoft has made in quite some time. One of the possable reasons for this is that your Mac will let you know occasionally when there is a much needed security update, Windows XP however, seems to have no problem letting the man in the black coat climb through the window (no pun intended). I do have several month's experience with Windows 7, and as far as security updates go, I have failed to download even one. The loading bar just sits there while (presumably) contacting the download server.

So all in all, is Windows 7 more secure that Mac OS X or Linux? I don't know, you tell me.