Acer Launching Dual Android/Windows 7 Netbook 105
Barence writes "Acer has unveiled an Aspire netbook that dual boots Google Android and Windows 7. 'User demand is not there for [other forms of] Linux [but] we never give up. We adjust,' said Jim Wong, Acer senior corporate vice president. 'We introduce Android with the Windows OS, and why Android? Because it has the best connectivity built into the OS.' Acer has also talked up Google's forthcoming Chrome OS. 'Chrome can be a viable alternative to Microsoft's OSes for web applications on different mobile devices,' he explained."
From the article - wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
So why Windows? "A lot of the time people are using netbook for their productivity too," explained Wong, "and under Windows they have better productivity and also a better browsing experience with IE [Internet Explorer]."
Better productivity? I suppose that may be true if you're tied to Windows apps. But a better browsing experience with IE? All I can respond with is, "wtf?"
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be "a lot of websites are still spending hours upon hours trying to function correctly with IE"
Best connectivity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it has the best connectivity built into the OS
Riiiight. And any other flavor of Linux is only able to connect at the equivalent level of a coffee can and string telephone. I think the real reason is because Android is a new shiny thing with lots of hype and a comforting corporate mother figure we can all snuggle up to and suckle on.
I want one without Windows. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ill take any darn OS if i just can avoid paying the Microsoft tax. The common misconception that nobody wanted Linux on netbooks is utter bullshit. They sold boatloads of netbooks before they started shipping them with a heavily discounted XP and suddenly, despite consumer demand they also yanked any Linux loaded netbook.
User demand not there for Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?
What have companies do to seriously create or satisfy that demand?
They try a shy toe in the water (like ASUS did), are wildly successful with a Linux only product, and then, as soon as Microsoft asks them to wag the tail, roll in and play dead they do so, in some cases with particular relish.
The demand, or at the very least, interest, is there: trade magazines, conferences, server installations and desktop installations (many of which are not publicized because they are done internally by big companies, you would be surprised to know some of the names doing this) say the demand is there.
Google Linux for bunnies sakes, the amount of information out there is astronomic. That is simply not coherent with lack of interest.
The demand for half hearted attempts to make Linux available may not be there, but I would like to see if there is no demand for a Linux machine running a well configured enterpirse distribution (RedHat, Ubuntu or even SuSe) backed up by proper marketing (Dell has spreads almost every day in free newspapers here in London, I would like to see the same kind of commitment and effort put towards a line of machines runing Linux exclusively).
Don't tell me the demand is not there when you have not tried seriously to satisfy a need.
Re:Wow really? (Score:3, Insightful)
IE=ActiveX. People still write those stupid IE only controls.
Re:When will operating systems become commodities? (Score:3, Insightful)
Integration.
Its very easy to make a game that both works on Windows and on an Xbox. The experience will be completly different. The same game that would run on both Mac and Windows (let say WoW): while you're in the game, its the same thing. When you have to troubleshot your graphic card or your network connectivity, very different.
People also care very very much about whats built in (the default apps for average users, the administration tools for advanced users).
You're right in that it doesn't matter as much as it used to. But it still matters. Sure, making a Hello World on TI calculator, a Windows box, a Ubuntu machine, or a Mac, is all the same. Getting the user experience that your customers expect however, is going to be completly different. When Windows 7 came out, the first thing I heard was people on the chrome discussions asking when the Aero Preview in the task bar would be the same in Chrome as it is in IE8. You don't do that the same way on Windows as you do in Linux. And its those little integration details that matter (and why many apps don't even always work -exactly- as is on all Linux distros, nevermind completly different boxes)
Re:Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS [..]
Why exactly is Linux running on my TV, on cell phones, on coffee machines, ATMs, kiosks, web servers smaller than my coffee mug, etc?
Oh wait, Linux has been a fantastic OS for embedded systems from day 1 because of how modular the kernel is.
Are you suggesting the Linux desktop isn't great on embedded devices? In that case, no desktop is perfect for embedded devices. However, every major desktop to market now has taken touchscreens in consideration for their UI. KDE 4 runs great on the Nokia n900.
Android was designed EXCLUSIVELY for small, embedded devices and works great.
I'm sorry, what exactly was your point again?
Re:User demand not there for Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your memory and reasoning are both a bit faulty.
First off, why should companies bother to try to create a demand for Linux when they already have a demand for Windows based products? Especially when current data shows that this would only increase their market by about 5%.
ASUS introduced the EEE series and it was mildly successful. It became a major success only AFTER they introduced the WinXP version. And, sales of the WinXP version vastly outstripped the sales of the Linux version
You use as your barometer of public interest industry specific items, non-user applications, and installation imposed by corporate governance. That is disingenuous as the general public does not read IT trade magazines or attend IT conferences, or have home servers. You state we don't hear about the major installations, but fail to name any or provide any support for your contention. And,you fail to mention companies returning to Windows installations.
A number major computer manufactures have tried to introduce Linux based platforms, with disappointing results and higher numbers of calls for assistance and complaints.
Are you sure you want to use Google to measure interest? There are three times as many pages for Windows than for Linux, and when one considers that Linux users are much more likely to have a website devoted to their preferred OS than Windows users, things do not looks as rosy as you paint them.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Again, why should Dell, or any company for that matter, spend that kind of money to attempt to create a demand for a product that will start off with, at best, 5% market share? That is just bad business sense.
What I find most amusing about your comment is that you seem to think it is the computer manufacturers' job to promote Linux. Computer manufacturers do not run commercials for Windows, nor do they create the demand for Windows. Microsoft does that. It is the responsibility of those that create and support Linux to create the demand for Linux, and thus far, they have done a terrible job of creating that demand. You want Dell to create ads for a Linux based line, but there is not a great enough demand in the general market to warrant such a thing.
The companies you should be looking to for ads and creating demand are RedHat, SuSE, and Canonical. They are the ones who have a stake in increasing general user adoption of Linux. They and the community have to improve Linux's image as user-unfriendly, difficult to use and support, and application poor. And, the community has to improve its own image, which is that it is hostile to anyone who doesn't know enough about their computer and Linux to answer one's own question.
RTFM N00B!!!
Re:Wow really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Microsoft's OEM License Allow This? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct about the lawsuit, which is why that provision was taken out of the OEM licensing agreement. Anti-trust rulings and all that.