We've known for a while about Microsoft's dubious attempt at an upsell strategy for its forthcoming operating system update, Windows 7 (the Release Candidate is expected to hit the streets on May 5) — the cheapest of the at-least-7-flavors of the OS will be arguably extremely crippled with a limit of only three concurrent running applications. Combined with a tidbit of more recent news about how the software giant has had to drop its Windows XP licenses to a mere $15 a pop for netbooks and a discussion-starter piece from the Wall Street Journal this weekend, and the internets are abuzz once again with incredulity at Microsoft's Windows 7 pricing strategy.

We can't help but agree. Moreover, didn't Ballmer and Co. just launch a multi-million dollar marketing campaign surrounding the "Mac tax" and touting the cheaper pricing of Windows machines? They know they're losing marketshare to Linux on netbooks as it is, and will shortly be forced to go head to head with Google in that market as the Android OS becomes a new key player in the netbook operating system space — presumably, in Google style, for free. In the cold, hard light of objective reality, how on earth does Microsoft think an intentionally "crippled by design" operating system is going to do anything other than arouse the wrath of consumers already skeptical about the advantages of Windows 7? Seriously, three applications?

The entire appeal of the netbook form factor is quick and easy computing on the go. If customers can get a more full-featured operating system at less cost, what leg does Microsoft think it's going to be standing on? What do you folks think — would you even have a use for a machine that could only run three apps at a time? Would you consider paying to "upgrade" to an OS that, uh, works — or would you be just as happy with an alternative OS based on Linux or Android?

This story around the web: