Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Decides To Take On Linux On Low-Cost PCs
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat May 10, 2008 10:49 AM
from the because-they-can dept.
from the because-they-can dept.
e5rebel writes "Microsoft is launching a program to promote the use of its Windows OS in ultra low-cost PCs. It is an effort to stop Linux dominating this market but Microsoft is insisting on limiting the hardware specs of these devices."
Related Stories
Submission: Microsoft U-turn to stop Linux on low cost PCs by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The pitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, like most of their similar pitches, I'm putting my money on it working spectacularly.
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Which highlights the HUGE elephant in the room on this issue: the whole thing is a marketing ploy, not a tech related solution.
The Problem:
Microsoft is finding its core PC maker customers are bleeding away at the very low end ($300 PCs) where the Windows OEM license is just too expensive to justify. If it allows this to continue, progress made in Linux on those devices will trickle up into more and more complex and sophisticated devices, quickly making OEMs wonder why they're paying for a Windows license on full price desktop PCs and laptops.
Microsoft's Solution
Announce that Windows can be stripped down and will be sold for low end PC devices (ie, a marketing announcement).
The Real Solution Required
Developing a scalable OS that can actually work on low end PC devices. Currently, Linux scales down much better than Windows XP, and Vista is only getting larger. Microsoft has to invest in stripping down XP, another distraction from Vista.
Microsoft spent ten years working on WinCE, which doesn't work well enough for anyone to use in the hand held PC realm that it was expressly designed for. If you want to argue about technology limitations of the day, then remember that desktop Linux was being developed at the same time as WinCE, 1998-2008. WinCE can't blame its shortcomings on existing technology of the day.
There is no evidence that Microsoft has the technical chops to developer a suitable mobile OS. "Embedded XP" is just XP sold to fill the market for PC-based devices. "Embedded CE" is just WinCE sold for non-PDA devices. Microsoft has no mobile OS to sell, and clearly has no ability to develop one anytime soon. It couldn't deliver decent performance in Vista within a half decade of trying, and that was just a PC desktop OS overhaul.
Linux already works and is free.
Interestingly, Apple has ported its desktop OS to the iPhone/iPod Touch "WiFi mobile platform" as a low power, flexible, but intentionally limited feature set (ie, not a desktop GUI nor a small laptop), offering a different alternative to Linux based micro-laptops rather than trying to ape them.
Microsoft should have pursued an original strategy like Apple or delivered a mini-desktop that works like the Linux community. Instead, it's in the position of trying to FUD Linux to death with a press release, despite not having the technology to sell.
Of course, this has all happened before.
The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile [roughlydrafted.com]
Zune Sales Still in the Toilet [roughlydrafted.com]
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Interesting)
His pitch was a word for word copy of the MS FUD you get on their website.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Interesting)
And just because the guy's a chump doesn't mean that he's wrong. If their cheap hires are *nix illiterate or they suck so badly as an employer that they can't retain staff; then the point-click-drool solution doubtlessly is "better" for them.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you might wish to consider politely turning down any job offer that results from the interview. There are good reasons for having a Microsoft environment. The beauty and elegance of Microsoft's software is not one of them.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a ton of respect for the guy, he has build a successful business, and is obviously good at what he does.
We had a frank discussion on the platform they use, and he has worked with Linux before. What I did notice was the aforementioned FUD reference. I'd expect more from a guy like this.
If the MS platforms were really that much superior to the Linux platforms why not have more specific and substantiated arguments? I smelled either a test, like an above poster mentioned, or he really believed the FUD, since he had no recent experience in a linux environment - by his own admission ten years ago at the newest.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:4, Insightful)
There are things Linux excels at. Scientific computing. EDA. Supercomputing. Batch systems running certain types of afforementioned applications. "glueware". When we do write Java services for specific reasons (deployment issues into a predominately Linux environment, for example) we do prefer to host them on Linux.
Microsoft continues to hold hearts and minds of developers simply because they've made .NET so nice and because there's nothing like VS2008+TFS. Continued ranting from the SlashDot crowd isn't ever going to change that, no matter how many stars you wish upon.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:4, Informative)
If something is heavily used by programmers, it tends to develop quickly. If it isn't, then it depends on somebody with a real interest in it both starting a project, being a good programmer, and being a good FOSS project manager. This is rare.
E.g., let's consider The Gimp. The latest version is slowly starting to change the name back from an acronym into it's expanded form "The GNU Image Manipulation Program". It's also adding some new features that *SOME* of the users have been asking for for quite a long time. It will never satisfy those whose definition of what it should be as "Just like Photoshop", but it's getting better. It definitely didn't get better as quickly as either Photoshop or Corel (whatever their painting program was called). But it's been making steady progress over more than a decade. (I, personally, prefer Deneba Canvas 8 [not 10, or X as they call it]. I like the combination of pixel based and vector art. But it's not moving to Linux, so I need to find a replacement. Fortunately, I can export EPS files, so I shouldn't lose *too* much work.)
OTOH, consider Gnumeric. That was essentially done by the first time I heard about it. The developer made it in honor of MSExcel (though I think that's because he was ignorant of MultiPlan), and moved on to develop Mono (which I doubt I will ever know whether was any good, as I refuse to install it). But Gnumeric was really good software developed really quickly as a FOSS project, and apparently by a single developer.
So results are all over the map. I could name several closed source projects that never made it out of Beta...even at times when I though the Beta was perfectly usable. If those had been FOSS projects, they might well not have died. There was one fancy spreadsheet program I remember that was fantastic...unfortunately it never reached the 2.0 version, because it was too slow on the then current computers. If it had survived, it might well now be the top spreadsheet. If it had been open source, it WOULD have survived. So sometimes being closed source causes programs to die no matter how good they are...if they don't suit current conditions.
And I can think of lots of FOSS projects that probably should have died, but which haven't, because FOSS projects can live as long as one person is willing to lend them disk space and a way to be downloaded. Many of these will never turn into anything worth while. So we need to develop better tools for sorting the wheat from the chaff...and figure out better uses for chaff.
Which is faster? It all depends. Linux went from nearly nothing to it's current state in a bit over a decade. MSWind went from DOS 1.0 to Vista in around 3 decades (probably a bit less). I think that Linux has developed more quickly. And also I, as and end user with quirks, believe that Linux has in a bit over 1/3 of the time developed into an OS that is in most ways superior to what MSWind has developed into. But others disagree.
Another case: I would pick Python or Ruby or Squeak over MSVisualBasic on any day that you name. But which I would pick would depend on what I was doing. It's arguable that MSVisualBasic is a better lowest common denominator. Still, all three of those FOSS languages developed to their current state in much less time than did MSVisualBasic. (Except possibly Squeak...but if you include Xerox Smalltalk in Squeak's ancestry, shouldn't you include Dartmouth Basic in that of MSVisualBasic? In which case it's still true.)
OTOH, you don't see much rapid progress in games for Linux. So some things develop quite slowly under FOSS.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Informative)
At work today, we're using XAML / WPF for some of our newest content creation tools, so I've gotten a chance to play with some of Microsft's cutting edge development APIs. Say what you like, but the
I'm not going to dismiss Linux as a solid development platform. It's got an solid work history, and it, of course, has the obvious benefits of being free and open source. What a lot of people don't seem to understand, though, is that many people really don't care all that much about those last two points. Software development is big business, and developing on Windows is simply the most practical option right now (again, in my industry: game development. I can't speak for yours). Reasons:
1) Windows is the OS of choice for large-scale game development efforts (both for Windows and console development). Some developers, such as Blizzard, admirably support a variety of platforms. I wish our company did, but there's no real economic incentive to do so. If anyone can successfully make the case, let me know. I'd love to present arguments to our company higher-ups.
2) It's hard to find developers with the expertise to port to Mac and Linux. The current talent pool of game developers is nearly universally trained with Microsoft tools and platforms. While on-the-job training is nearly always required to some degree, any more required training is a disincentive. Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's a problem nonetheless.
3) The development tools from Microsoft are excellent. I've seen some cool open-source stuff, and in fact, we do use those tools as well. What's important to us as a development house is productivity, because our real costs are in labor, not software. If buying a few hundred dollars worth of software will save all our developers a few hours (for instance, the company pays for Visual Assist X plugins for developers), it's worth it.
Say what you like about "point-and-click" developers, but I work on both low-level game engine code all the way up to tools and utilities. The farther down I go in the code, the lower level my style becomes. In my opinion, it's simply smart to use the most appropriate development tools available for the job at hand. When I need to bang out a quick utility to help artists generate a simple XML configuration file, I can create a nice little easy-to-use utility using C# / WPF /
Parent
A good case. (Score:4, Insightful)
Analyst IDC's forecast is more modest: On Thursday it said it expects ULPC sales to hit 9 million units by 2012, up from 500,000 last year.
a)Say M$ is successful and is able to sell XP on every second of those ULPC's. That is a lot of PC's running Linux.
b)Now if a gaming developer manages to develop a high quality game that (1) runs on Linux and Windows and(2) runs on their lower specifications it would make a killing in the market.
c)If they develop a high quality inter platform game for these ulpc's, they could pitch their product to the vendors of these ulpc's to include as pre-installed, and make revenue from game related content, and maybe even from the inclusion of these games.
Why is this a good idea?
i) By conservative estimates there will be 9Million of these units sold by 2012. That is four years from now. WinXP will be very outdated by then, so MS will either need to ship a competitive modern OS for these, or Linux will be the dominant OS, so beginning a cross-platform development process makes sense. At best M$ will be able to gain 50% of the market.
ii) 9Million units are a lot. This is a lucrative gaming market. The Playstation (the PSP) and Nintendo (the DS) offerings have shown that mobile gaming is alive. Preparing a product for the boom to come makes sense, as these products become cheaper they will continue selling well.
iii) A possible sales pitch to the makers of these products is this: A range of games for these devices will radically expand the market. Parents will feel better about buying their children a portable productivity tool that also plays games as opposed to buying a dedicated entertainment device. Adult gamers will also spend money on a combined device rather than having to buy two separate devices.
iv) The hardware specifications also lend these devices to a satisfying gaming experience. Many of them have wireless networking functionality, internet access will soon be a given, and they come with lots of processor power and RAM. Graphics support might be problematic in the short term, so 3d games that are graphics intensive might pose a problem for now. MMORG, FPS, Racing and strategy games will all be popular on these devices.
v) Since the ULPC is in essence a device based on x86 compatible architecture it will be easy to port games to the traditional gaming PC, making it easy to for once effectively bridge the divide between mobile and home-based gaming. The internet will make it possible for both to play games online against each other.
In closing, there is a lucrative, largely untapped Linux (and windows) market for the gaming industry. If effort is made to develop a range of games for these devices it will mean revenue over a very long term. If extra effort is put into developing the business model properly a gaming developer might be the first to offer a game that can be played transparently on the ULPC, the PC and the Laptop. This will be a first, and good firsts make money.
Money is a motivator, and if you develop for the ULPC linux market you are also by default developing for the Linux desktop and notebook market, hence you will have broken into not only a wide market of mobile gaming, you will have broken into the linux gaming market, and you will not only be a market leader, you will essentially be the market owner on most common platforms today and tomorrow.
I would be surprised if a gaming developer isn't already working towards this goal.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Interesting)
Both have point and click build your own GUI programs. It's just that you use windows at home, work, etc so you build your programs to only work on that OS.
It's exactly the same as the Internet Explorer only websites from the 90s.
You seem very familiar with Microsoft's solutions but have you ever truly looked at other solutions? I think not otherwise you would have structured your comment differently.
When you say "solutions", are you talking about OS or development tools? With regards to OS, then no, I'm mostly familiar with Windows. As far as development tools, I've used products from Borland, Watcom, Microsoft, and SN Systems. Professionally, though, the game industry is currently dominated by Microsoft's tools. Every single game company I've worked at (five) have used Visual Studio.
It may sound strange, but most developers I know (including myself) are fans of Linux as a general principle. I've been hankering to install Linux on one of my old dev boxes and work on some freeware games. Maybe I'll actually make this happen in the near future. It might be fun to start another side project.
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:5, Interesting)
(I base this on the near 300 dollars for Vista Ultimate and near 200 dollars for Home Basic.)
Parent
Re:The pitch (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:This has nothing to do with Lunix (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Everything to do with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real reason is to try to stem the numbers of people getting exposure to Linux and finding out that it is quite capable of doing the job for a fraction of the Micro$oft cost.
And to add to it, since Vista is too fat to fit they are going to be using the soon to be discontinued XP base to do it. Go figure.
Parent
Parent is right (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to those who have previously been priced out---damn, not working.
This move will bring the stability and usability of windows to a fresh new market that Microsoft has yet to abuse---dang.
It's just what everyone wanted---more stripped-down versions of windows!
I don't think I'm getting anywhere here. Anyone else care to give it a try?
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
- Predatory pricing to prevent a new entrant into a market by a company with market dominance
- Limitations on what resellers can do with the product purchased (only on low-end PCs)
- Arbitrary discounts to some distributors over others
- Agreements between different members of the supply chain to limit customer choice
If the EU is at all consistent with the policies explained in my training today, MS should be forced to either sell low-cost XP to everyone, regardless of the hardware, or not sell XP at all. Who do I write in the EU to get an injunction?Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason that HP or Dell or some smaller company isn't pushing hard for Linux is because there's no proprietary value in doing so. If Company X invested huge amounts of work into making Linux ideal on the desktop, other companies could take that work and put it on their own PCs. Unlike the server market, there's no real business model for earning revenue just from support as Red Hat does. Even Red Hat sees no market potential on the desktop.
That leaves PC makers willing to push Windows, even when it is not the best solution (particularly in mobile devices). There's no development investment to be lost to other hardware competitors.
The only company that isn't pushing Windows is Apple, but that's because it has its own proprietary OS, which is like (LIKE not is!) a superset of Linux with a custom GUI and dev frameworks. Apple can invest heavily in Mac OS X knowing that other companies can't just take its work and reuse it to add value to their own PCs. Incidentally, that's also part of why Apple has no interest in selling Mac OS X as an OS for other PCs: it serves as a major differentiator.
Until PC makers individually work or group together to develop their own OS (imagine a consortium between Dell and HP to develop a desktop Linux), the only other desktop OS will be Mac OS X. That is unlikely to happen because of the competitive barriers of Windows (installed base of software, drivers, and familiarity, but more importantly the fact that Dell and HP can't afford to have Microsoft jack up their Windows OEM prices due to the fact that they've started selling Linux PCs).
And so the status quo is resisting any change. It would take a lot of outside pressure to push PC makers to do anything different. Continued popularity of the Mac might help, continued problems with Vista might help, and continued progress on making Linux easy to use might help, but the real problem is that PC makers lack much vision and don't want to upset their business or take any risks because the commodity hardware market is very low margin. There's simply little room to compete in between Apple at the slick premium top and Windows at the high volume middle.
It makes sense that PC makers wouldn't want to continue paying Microsoft $30-50 per OEM license to put Windows on a PC that sells for $700 and has a $350 bill of materials, but it appears that they're more worried about investing millions into Desktop Linux and seeing no real return because everyone else would share their contributions to the GPL software base. Of course, if you're selling ten million PCs, those OEM licenses are costing a third of a billion dollars, so at some point you'd think Dell and HP would exercise some leadership in investing in Desktop Linux. But again, Microsoft can simply raise their OEM prices and inflate the cost of Windows per PC, making any efforts to diversify a no-win gamble.
10 million Windows PCs @ $30 Windows OEM = $300 M of Windows licensing
vs
5 million Linux PCs @ $0 Windows OEM = $150 M of Windows licensing saved, potentially invested into Linux development
5 million Windows PCs @ a punitively priced $60 Windows OEM = $300 M of Windows licensing, all potential savings lost
As long as Microsoft can charge whatever price it wants for its monopoly utility software on an individual basis, it can effectively make Linux impossible for larger PC makers to invest in. If Microsoft's OEM prices were open and regulated like most every other monopoly, then alternatives (particularly free ones) would have a chance to compete. As it is, the only way to compete with Microsoft is to compete full throttle as Apple does - all Mac OS X and no Windows dependancies at all.
Zune Sales Still In the Toilet [roughlydrafted.com]
Parent
crippled hardware = bad performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It smacks of anti-trust issues but that really isn't a big surprise anymore.
Re:crippled hardware = bad performance (Score:5, Insightful)
My real reaction to this is nausea. In effect this is what is happening:
"Please please pleeeaaasse sell XP on your products! We'll even give it at a discount, but then you need to do what we say specs wise."
C'mon, why the limits on the hardware specs? Is it to limit the choice of the customer?
"Sorry sir, if you want a touch screen with that baby we'll need to limit you to using Vista. I know you are supposed to have a choice in the matter, but Microsoft policy dictates otherwise. Yeah, in effect they get to decide what you can run on what you buy. A linux alternative, uh sure - I think dell offers a similar spec device with Ubuntu on it... wait, where are you going!?"
When will MS begin to put the interests of their customers first? If they can develop a custom version of Windows for mobile devices, surely they can develop a custom _modern_ version of Windows for low-end or micro laptops.
If a linux community can do that, why can't they? Are they admitting that the open-source community which they deride so is capable of something they are not?
Could it be that they cannot develop something like this? I say they definitely can, so the only other alternative is that they don't want to - hence they don't give a rats ass what the customer needs.
Parent
If they want to limit specs... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the low end, it seems like all MS will be doing is highlighting their shortcomings.
Re:If they want to limit specs... (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't compete any more. They mandate. Their problem seems to be that OEMs are now following along by releasing systems under their mandate, but also building neat stuff outside the mandate. They can't do anything about the fact that their mandate subtracts value, making the new Linux gear immensely popular.
Parent
Of Course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Limiting the hardware specs ensures a healthy profit margin on the OS. Sounds like good business.
We wouldn't want folks loading "WinXP lite" on good hardware. It might run really fast and have fewer conflicts, then they'll come to expect that from us in other products.
Funny (Score:3, Funny)
In business school... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems people were buying the EeePC just the way it was, with Linux and all, and using it just fine. I can't speak to it myself, as I have no use for such a device. However, what rationale is there for screwing up a perfectly good market just to make Microsoft happy, when they weren't a player to begin with?
Breaking the rules (Score:5, Interesting)
The rule was, never release a new platform that won't run the latest version of Microsoft's products. ASUS broke the rule and can't make their new product fast enough. Their new deal with Microsoft just highlights that if you break the rules and succeed, you get new rules.
Maybe ASUS will take the money and run, Maybe they'll deprecate their Linux offerings and move millions of XP Home eee machines and be happy. I don't think so, but that could happen.
It doesn't matter. If ASUS won't break the rules somebody else on their way up will. This whole scene will play out over and over. Marketing deals cannot halt innovation because it's the innovators that bring the interesting new products that catch our attention and gain the most enthusiastic early adopters.
Parent
Re:Breaking the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh course. It is always thus. All of the established players were fearing where this would end up. Now they think they head this off at the pass and declare that what everyone really wanted was tiny $500 machines instead of $500 machines with 14" screens and 120GB hard drives.
But there are plenty of Chinese manufacturers without a vested interest in the current product catagories and retail outlets who don't have a horse in the computer races. Imagine these:
1. Take 1 15" LCD panel, strap $50 worth of computer to the VESA mount on the back. Give it enough smarts to get itself onto most broadband connections via wired or wireless. Sell em through Big Lots or some such deep discounter. Or imagine an LCD TV/DVD player with a brain upgrade, a WiFi antenna and a USB keyboard/mouse in the box.
2. Grab an ARM system on chip, a smallish LCD and whip up a $120-150 portable. Forget making it especially small or light, just go for CHEAP. Again, push em through stores that don't HAVE a computer department to worry about cannibalizing.
How about this for an idea for a totally new form factor. Imagine a clipboard form factor. Screen at the top, keyboard at the bottom, a flat sheet of lipo battery on the whole bottom. NO hinge, NO bother. CHEEP. Add a vinyl folding cover if ya just wanna pay lip service to protecting the screen or want to make it a 'notebook'.... heck, add a place for paper and go for the 'portfolio with a computer embedded' form factor.
At any rate, Moore's Law will keep driving down the cost of a system capable of running Firefox. Eventually we have to get low enough Microsoft won't be able to stay in this game of limbo and then the game changes.
Parent
Two things leap out (Score:5, Insightful)
The first is that they limit screen size and also prevent you from having touch screens. Maybe it's just me, but the probability of any device I own having a touch screen goes up the smaller the screen size is, so this seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot.
The other thing that really leaps out is this:
XP Home only (Score:5, Informative)
So if you're looking for thin & light notebooks to join your AD domain, you still need the Linux ones.
They've just defined the features for the next big Linux boom: 12" touch screen, 100GB HDD, dual core. That was clever. Differentiate your product as the less capable one. Genius!
These machines will never run Vista well. Let's keep that important knowledge in front of people. Intel expects to move 10 million Atom platforms in the first wave, and none will have Vista.
Bah! (Score:5, Informative)
I also found this today. MilaX [milax.org] which claims to be like DSL but is based on OpenSolaris. But it doesn't look like that POS laptop will be able to run this.
MS is planning on charging betweek $26-$32 bucks for Windows XP Home Edition for these machines. That's still a significant cost compared to the price of these machines. Especially the One Laptop Per Child based on reports of what they're planning on charging. But then again it seems their prototypes wound up being 2x as much as planned.
Way Cool; now is time to start company (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Whoa, we're dominating a desktop market? That's awesome!
Sometimes, when you turn around and look at the path that FLOSS has made over the past two decades, you just have to be proud. Way to go everyone!
Giving Up The Immunity Necklace (Score:4, Funny)
1: Give up the immunity necklace?
2: Let Microsoft dictate their product design, especially into a less competitive stance?
Fear and trembling in the PC industry (Score:5, Interesting)
The PC industry is terrified of low-cost laptops. They see $199 laptops in bubble packs at every WalMart, with a profit of about $1 per unit. Dell is in trouble; their custom-build business model is dying. So Microsoft's approach to driving up prices looks attractive.
It won't last, but it might be good for a few years.
Am I the only one to feel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, there's a great alternative out there. Microsoft is, for the first time in a very long time, in a position not as the big bully, but as the kid trying to get popular. Let's see how they manage to cope with this...
A modest projection (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft OTOH is caught in a dead end. The only chance I can see for them to be relevant 20 years from now is a gamble and not at favorable odds. They need to loose WGA, meaningless product definition, and all the other annoying and ineffective marketing tricks and focus their considerable talents on building the best servers and desktop systems they possibly can. They have lost over a decade since their last user oriented release (Windows 95) and will already be playing catch up in many areas.
Yes, they will leave money on the table short term. But if they can get their act together, they may have an expanding base of happy and enthusiastic customers ten years from now. If they don't do that, they are doomed to lose out to Apple, Open Source, and Google who do have such a base.
BTW, I just had to deal with a series of hardware and software meltdowns that required getting both a Windows XP and a Linux PC up with just basic install software and a backup of the old applications. Neither operation was fun, but Windows was especially awful -- a sort of ongoing horror show of stupid and arbitrary constraints on what could be done and how it could be done. The only place where Windows was clearly superior was in installation of a network printer. And eventually CUPS will be usable by mere mortals, so Windows won't even have that to brag about.
To sum it up. Windows and Open Source both have a long way to go. Open Source looks to be chugging along. Windows is lost in a horrendous swamp. It isn't hard to see the eventual outcome.
All about the UMPC (Score:5, Insightful)
The first few versions utterly sucking is something that MS is used to, so there was reason to believe that they would work this one out as well. Costs would gradually go down, chips would get less power hungry, and so on, and the UMPC would eventually worm its way in. Then the eeePC and friends show up(arguably, the tradition of tiny laptops goes back a long way, various PC makers have been pumping them out for years, although in small quantities and at high costs, and the OLPC project can be said to have spurred cheap, small laptops; but the eeePC was the first to hit the western mass market). Compared to the UMPC, the eeePC and similar are pretty boring tech. Just normal laptops; but smaller. Thing is, this is one of those situations where modest ambitions are a real blessing. UMPC goals required hardware that was either unavailable or too expensive. eeePC goals required nothing more than the willingness to slap together parts that are already cheap and common. Even if the eeePC and its ilk were all running XP from the get-go, they would still be a kick in the teeth for the UMPC. I doubt that the category is dead; but the road to acceptance, particularly for consumer level applications, became much steeper and much rockier with the advent of the eeePC and similar. The fact that Linux is showing up for the party is adding insult to injury.
I'm thinking that the hardware restrictions serve a few purposes:
Keep a clear distinction between UMPC(now positioned as "premium") and the teeny laptop("budget"). Teeny laptops kill UMPCs at being cheap; but MS hopes, at least, to preserve certain features as UMPC only.
Keep Linux from creeping upward. Obviously, MS doesn't like any machines not running Windows; but they would rather preserve a "linux=cheap gadget/Windows=real computer" distinction than not. By not allowing high end features to creep in(or, at least, forcing OEMs to make more hardware variants if they do), MS can keep eee type boxes from gradually shading into full computers or "premium" small computers.
Re:They have to fight the camel's nose (Score:5, Informative)
Because Joe wants to run Calendar Creator or some such nonsense. He doesn't want to type "sudo apt-get install $whatever". He doesn't even want to use Synaptics Package manager. He wants the damn CD he bought in the bargain bin at WalMart to load and install.
He wants IE and all the stupid toolbars.
He doesn't want to think about this appliance he bought.
And he especially doesn't want to go online and post a question to a forum. Even the warm and inviting Ubuntu forums. He just wants it to work. (Irony noted).
Parent
Re:They have to fight the camel's nose (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Joe User WANTS to spend more money? (Score:5, Insightful)
When he could just download the app at home.
Parent
Re:Joe User WANTS to spend more money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Good ole joe (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe has a problem: the cost of creating an online application that mirrors Word (and Excel and friends) exactly is in the several-millions, and is furthermore legally proscribed by patents anyway.
We can hook Joe up with some great RTEs and OOo templates that work for a couple thousand dollars, but Joe wants the illegal multimillion dollar project for $2,000.
I'm not interested in trying to accomodate Joe anymore.
Parent
Re:But are these devices that useful? (Score:5, Informative)
The point isn't really to replace the notebook. They'll do that too, though. A modern laptop is ridiculously overpowered for the purpose of running a well designed OS and office application. The idea is to make it cheap enough to not freak out about breaking it, to provide enough power to do your stuff but not so much that you have to be chained to a wall wart to accomplish anything that takes more than two hours.
Yes. And it runs just fine. And with Compiz the visual effects are flashier than Aero if you want them to be. And it will play HD video just fine. And it's got all the wireless features you would expect. And on and on. The screen and keyboard are a little small. The next generation may be better in this regard.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I run XP on my first gen Eee PC because I wanted Windows. It runs just as quick as the default Xandros and other Linux distros I put on it.
[...]
People bash on about XP being slow and crappy on these low power systems but in reality it isn't.
That's all peachy dandy as long as your install is still fresh. Give it a few months and your precious XP will be crawling like a dog as it does on any other PC it's been running on for a period of time.
With Windows, you'll have to reinstall to regain your original performance. With Ubuntu, it won't degrade in the first place.
Re:E.g. EeePC (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, a lot of good the "patent" agreement did Xandros here. They got "blessing" to sell their linux with windows "compatible" functions only to have Microsoft come and eat their lunch when they actually make sales.
Parent
Because that would zap the shares.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's already hard enough work to keep shareholders from bolting after the Vista debacle, the EU fine (which IMHO will get worse as a problem) and the ISO farce which will come back to haunt them. The amount of BS that is required to drown out reality is enough work as it is without someone trying to be realistic about their prospects as well..
[yes, I'm being sarcastic, but MS *is* taking huge hits, whatever spin they put on it. To have to report a loss *after* they had several months to massage the figures with creative accounting is a *very* bad sign]
Parent