Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 21st Nov 2008 19:39 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Last month we covered an article titled, "MSI: Wind Doing Well, Linux Version Not So Much" which revealed that Linux MSI Wind netbooks saw a return rate upto four times higher than the Windows equivalent. But in a recent interview with the CEO of Asus he revealed that Linux and Window versions of Asus Eee PC have similar return rates. He also described the plans for 2009 and talked about some changes to come in the Operating System for the netbooks.
Order by: Score:
One word:
by shiny on Fri 21st Nov 2008 20:49 UTC
shiny
Member since:
2005-08-09

Yay! ;)

Reply Score: 5

FUD off
by TheBadger on Fri 21st Nov 2008 21:24 UTC
TheBadger
Member since:
2005-11-14

Nice to see some material to debunk the myth that people hate Linux outside the server room. All it takes is for some misselling (not exactly unforeseen if you go to an electrical retailer and see how they label their products, even making up their own product codes, too), some persuasion by Microsoft sales representatives for someone to "comment" on unhappy customers, and then a myth grows up. Hopefully Asus (and Acer and the rest) will continue to "get it" and keep selling and promoting Linux-based products, because it is what the customers want. Or rather, it *isn't* what the customers *don't* want, as this story really indicates, perhaps.

Reply Score: 8

RE: FUD off
by flanque on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 09:45 UTC in reply to "FUD off"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Well to be fair he said he thinks the return rate is low and he believes they're roughly even. Certainly he wasn't definite. It didn't read to me that he really knew for sure about the return rates or the breakup of Windows or Linux returns.

We really need to see real numbers before concluding either way.

Edited 2008-11-23 09:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: FUD off
by rockwell on Mon 24th Nov 2008 16:28 UTC in reply to "FUD off"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Please point to where in the article he mentions the actual numbers, rather than what he "thinks" and "believes".

Talk about believing the hype ... freetards are the worst offenders.

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by google_ninja on Fri 21st Nov 2008 21:33 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Interesting to see that windows 7 eeepcs will be here by mid-2k9. Eee tends to only really be the lower end of the netbook spectrum.

Reply Score: 3

fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

There are "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics".

That's my opinion of the previous reporting of increased Linux netbook returns.

Reply Score: 11

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And statistics are nothing more than plausible lies. ;) I don't ever put that much stock in statistics, as anyone can find evidence to back up whatever statistic they choose. Talk is cheap, and numbers cheap at twice the price.

Reply Score: 2

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Unless it's favourable to Linux (like this article) and thus is becomes automatically true!

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Unless it's favourable to Linux (like this article) and thus is becomes automatically true!


Welcome to OSNews ;) .

Reply Score: 5

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't just take the two articles in isolation. The figures that show the return rates are similar have come from the CEO of Asus, which is a far more reliable source than the previous claim.

Reply Score: 2

It Was Always Bunk
by segedunum on Fri 21st Nov 2008 22:45 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I always thought this was bunk. It's like saying that people return Symbian, Android and iPhone mobiles because they don't run Windows Mobile or that your new TV doesn't have a Windows menu. People want to browse the web, get to their e-mail and do a few other set tasks. There's no way that you can install and use all the software that people use on Windows on a netbook. It's too impractical to use most applications and it is obvious to everyone when they buy it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It Was Always Bunk
by darknexus on Fri 21st Nov 2008 23:28 UTC in reply to "It Was Always Bunk"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

On the early netbooks this was certainly true. With much of the recent models however it is not so impractical as you would think. Sure, you're not going to be doing any heavy audio or video work on them and they're definitely not meant for 3d gaming. But apart from that, most software--be it a windows program or a *NIX program--actually will run quite well. Most of the problems experienced are related to the bottleneck of disk access, as some of these netbooks come with horrible SSDs and require a lot of tweaking. I usually avoid the SSDs at this point and get a straight hd for this reason, I like the space and the faster speed. I know SSD could be faster than a hard drive, and on the high quality SSDs this is probably true. But they're expensive for the amount of space you get, and most netbooks for this reason come with cheap SSDs that make even a 1.8-inch, 4200 RPM hard drive look fast.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It Was Always Bunk
by rockwell on Mon 24th Nov 2008 20:25 UTC in reply to "It Was Always Bunk"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Um, no? How blind are you?

Most people returned the Linux-based netbooks because the devices WON'T RUN THE SOFTWARE they can buy on the shelf next to it.

This isn't rocket science ... actually, for freetards, maybe it is.

Edited 2008-11-24 20:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It Was Always Bunk
by IridiumAlly on Mon 24th Nov 2008 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: It Was Always Bunk"
IridiumAlly Member since:
2007-06-29

Most people returned the Linux-based netbooks because the devices WON'T RUN THE SOFTWARE they can buy on the shelf next to it.



Ummmmm.... Netbooks usually lack an optical drive (i.e. CD/DVD)

So, even if they do buy an off-the-shelf title they would not be able to use it on any netbook without attaching a USB CDROM drive.

Now, if you were to claim that a netbook owner who is used to downloading and installing anything they run across online suddenly can't because they are using a Linux based netbook then I would agree with you. Once you show a Linux based netbook user where to find the software management app they are set. Especially when you mention the word free.

And, as an added bonus: My mom recently returned her Windows-based netbook. After using it for a couple of weeks to pay her bills online she had some unauthorized activity in her bank account. Coincidence?
Maybe, but the performance was really bad. And, Windows kept getting in her way with popup messages.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It Was Always Bunk
by rockwell on Mon 24th Nov 2008 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It Was Always Bunk"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Once you show a Linux based netbook user where to find the software management app they are set. Especially when you mention the word free. //

Right, and you're there in the store when they're buying it, explaining how yum and apt-get work, and how to update the repos in the OS they just bought, right?

Sure you are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: It Was Always Bunk
by fretinator on Tue 25th Nov 2008 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It Was Always Bunk"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are using Ubuntu, you do nothing. When updates are available an icon shows up in the tray (just like windows). It even has a tooltip windows that comes up and says "Updates available". You click the icon and it shows you the updates. You click "Update All" and it asks you for password and that's it.

If you want to add programs, you go to Add/Remove programs. You pick a program and click install. You enter the password, that is it.

People act like this is rocket science. I fear for my dear Americans. We must not be a very bright bunch if we cannot do this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It Was Always Bunk
by rockwell on Tue 25th Nov 2008 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It Was Always Bunk"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//If you want to add programs, you go to Add/Remove programs. You pick a program and click install. You enter the password, that is it.

People act like this is rocket science. I fear for my dear Americans. We must not be a very bright bunch if we cannot do this.//

You can add mediabuntu repos via Add/Remove??

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: It Was Always Bunk
by sbergman27 on Tue 25th Nov 2008 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It Was Always Bunk"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You can add mediabuntu repos via Add/Remove??

No need. You simply double click on, say, an mp4 file in the file manager or in the browser and Ubuntu comes up and says you don't have a program to play it, and asks if you want it to look for one. (Also noting that the codec may be patent encumbered.) You can say yes, if desired, and it installs gstreamer-ffmpeg or whatever is required for that format along with its dependencies, and the movie you clicked begins playing with no further fuss. It works very well.

You haven't actually used Ubuntu, have you. Note that is a statement and not a question.

Edited 2008-11-25 17:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: It Was Always Bunk
by rockwell on Wed 26th Nov 2008 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It Was Always Bunk"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Since I knew what mediabuntu was, it's quite obvious that I've used Ubuntu before, but not lately.

You are an idiot. Note that was a statement, not a question.

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7 skipping Vista
by buff on Fri 21st Nov 2008 23:05 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I liked how the CEO mentioned he plan to skip Vista and install Windows 7. My hunch that Vista was a beta OS has been confirmed. Windows 7 will probably be reserved for the 2 Gig models and up. I can't see it working well on less RAM.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows 7 skipping Vista
by Michael on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 01:00 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 skipping Vista"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

After all the nonsense with "Vista Capable", I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 7 actually had lower system requirements than it's not-so-illustrious predecessor.

Then, there's the possibility that MS is doing a special netbook version of 7, having seen how much market share it's already lost to Linux in that sector.

Then again, RAM is cheap and 2GB isn't so much these days.

Edited 2008-11-22 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows 7 skipping Vista
by google_ninja on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 7 skipping Vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Vista can run fine on most netbook hardware, the problem is the install size. if you have an 8 gig ssd, there is no way vista is going to fit on it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows 7 skipping Vista
by AdamW on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 16:29 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 skipping Vista"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

There was a story on Engadget a couple of weeks ago about how awesome Windows 7 was for netbooks. Apparently, a *specially tweaked* netbook edition of the Windows 7 pre-beta used 'just' 450MB of RAM to sit at a desktop doing nothing.

*sigh* how are these clowns running the world again?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows 7 skipping Vista
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 7 skipping Vista"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apparently, a *specially tweaked* netbook edition of the Windows 7 pre-beta used 'just' 450MB of RAM to sit at a desktop doing nothing.


Adam, the amount of RAM in use is irrelevant. It's about HOW it is used, and if the operating system is capable of devoting the right amount of memory to the right program/service, at the right time.

I'd much rather have the OS do something useful with my RAM when I'm not using it, instead of just letting it be scrap silicon.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Fri 21st Nov 2008 23:20 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Why do they allow people to return them anyway? Well, unless they're faulty.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by unoengborg on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 00:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

One reason could be that they find the keyboard or the screen too small, many people buy things like this on the net without having a chance to try it out first, so it may come as a surprise to them how small they actually are.

Another reason for the returns of could be that people believed that they came with windows. By the time these devices was introduced to the market many people didn't realize that there was more than one OS that could run on a PC, so they didn't bother check what OS the device used. Many probably didn't even know that there was something called an OS, and thought all PCs were alike.

Today, more people are aware that netbooks often comes with Linux, and thus the higher initial return rate for Linux, if there ever was one, have gone down, as people that want windows, now actually make sure that they get a windows model.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by bornagainenguin on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

unoengborg pointed out...

One reason could be that they find the keyboard or the screen too small, many people buy things like this on the net without having a chance to try it out first, so it may come as a surprise to them how small they actually are.


This is likely the most accurate analysis yet!

When I was looking at the ASUS EeePCs earlier this year I went to several Best Buys known to be selling them in hopes of doing a little touch typing and seeing how well the keyboard worked for me. I was told it was corporate policy not to have the EeePC out on display. Needless to say when I got my EeePC 901, it was not from Best Buy.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

Netbooks are too small
by perspectoff on Mon 24th Nov 2008 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
perspectoff Member since:
2008-11-06

I bought a widescreen Toshiba Laptop on sale for $349, about the price of a netbook.

It had Windows Vista Home Premium on it. I shrrank the petition and installed Kubuntu Intrepid Ibex, which works much, much faster and with tons of free software and cool games (Nexuis, etc.) It is also compliant with my open-source groupware server.

Why would I want a small-screen, small keyboard underpowered notebook for the same price, no matter what the OS was?

It's always possible to find less than bleeding edge hardware on sale -- and installing Kubuntu Linux these days is a snap, no matter what the hardware (I did it on an 8 year old laptop last month).

The reason for netbook returns is because they're small.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netbooks are too small
by Johann Chua on Mon 24th Nov 2008 12:07 UTC in reply to "Netbooks are too small"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Hello? People want netbooks because they're small and cheap. I for one do not want to lug around a regular laptop just for casual web browsing when I go shopping (for price comparison research, etc.).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Netbooks are too small
by rockwell on Mon 24th Nov 2008 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Netbooks are too small"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

You actually carry a laptop with you when you go shopping at brick-and-mortar stores?

Ever heard of ecommerce?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Netbooks are too small
by Johann Chua on Wed 26th Nov 2008 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netbooks are too small"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Ever hear of "no credit card"?

Online shopping in the Philippines is a joke.

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7 = real vista
by TechGeek on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 01:56 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista with a few minor improvements. It is almost exactly the same and will use the same amount of resources. At least that is what the beta testers have been saying.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows 7 = real vista
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 12:13 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 = real vista"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista with a few minor improvements. It is almost exactly the same and will use the same amount of resources. At least that is what the beta testers have been saying.


There is only one "tester" who claimed that, and we pretty much already agreed that was a rather silly article.

http://www.osnews.com/story/20527/Unmasked_by_Counting_Threads_

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows 7 = real vista
by gilboa on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 7 = real vista"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista with a few minor improvements. It is almost exactly the same and will use the same amount of resources. At least that is what the beta testers have been saying.


There is only one "tester" who claimed that, and we pretty much already agreed that was a rather silly article.

http://www.osnews.com/story/20527/Unmasked_by_Counting_Threads_
"

I assume W7 will be better than Vista because MS told you so?
Thus far, all the information about W7, -on both ends- was either fan-boyish (on both ends) or PR releases. Nothing else. (And forgive me for not trusting anything that comes from MS' PR department.)

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows 7 = real vista
by google_ninja on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows 7 = real vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

he's got an unlocked 6801 build installed (as do I)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows 7 = real vista
by gilboa on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows 7 = real vista"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

So?

If I had 1000$ for each feature MS removed between the Beta and the RTM, I'd be sipping cocktails on the beach on some God forsaken island I just bought for a couple of million dollars...

I can still remember of the shock of having NT 4 RTM being far slower (and buggier) than the last beta... (Before you ask, we used the beta until MS released the first SP)

- Gilboa

Edited 2008-11-22 18:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Windows 7 = real vista
by google_ninja on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows 7 = real vista"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I didn't use windows back then, my experience with the whistler and longhorn builds pre rtm were alot more rough then windows 7.

win95 was a rough experience, win98 (eventually) got refined. ditto with win2k and winxp. my feeling is that win 7 is the 98se or xp sp2 equivalent to vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows 7 = real vista
by gilboa on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows 7 = real vista"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't use windows back then, my experience with the whistler and longhorn builds pre rtm were alot more rough then windows 7.

win95 was a rough experience, win98 (eventually) got refined. ditto with win2k and winxp. my feeling is that win 7 is the 98se or xp sp2 equivalent to vista.


We'll see.
As much as I dislike Windows, I do use it (cross-platform development) and administer it (family, friends) so I have a vested interest in having W7 perform (and behave) far better the Vista.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Windows 7 = real vista
by spudlee on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows 7 = real vista"
spudlee Member since:
2008-11-23


We'll see.
As much as I dislike Windows, I do use it (cross-platform development) and administer it (family, friends) so I have a vested interest in having W7 perform (and behave) far better the Vista.

- Gilboa


I've just become a member. I've been reading OSNews since 2005.

After all this time I just have to finally comment, and no I'm not picking on you I'm just tired of the same old line (in your case it's probably true, I'm not really saying that it's not.)

I use Windows all the time, I also use Linux all the time. I prefer Linux because I'm always learning something new, I like the fact that I'm free to do to Linux anything I wish. I like the fact that Windows runs some of my programs very well. I've had "bsod" in windows maybe 15 to 20 times since 1987. I also have used Macs and had great experiences as well.

What I'm trying to say is why does everyone always go on and on about using windows for only "this" or linux for only "that"? I use different OS's and different Platforms all the time, not because I have to but, because I want to.

Anyone who chooses to use only one tool is welcome to make that choice, but I'd rather have a full box of tools.

Microsoft, Apple, Linux.... The only thing that makes sense with these not co-existing is that it makes for great market share and profit margins for the companies which make Windows and MacOS.

Linux is an awesome operating system and would have a greater following if we just focus on what makes it great and not on what makes it "better" than everything else or how everything is so bad at "this and that."

Believe me as funny as the Mac ads are, people will and are getting sick of them.

Reply Score: 2

v Windows Me or Windows 7?
by centos_user on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 03:15 UTC
RE: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by merkoth on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 03:41 UTC in reply to "Windows Me or Windows 7?"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Yes, we all run DHCP, DNS and database servers from our netbooks...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by centos_user on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

Well lets see, you could run a caching name server, for your home network...

I guess Windows users automatically veto anything that does not imply spending $10,000 for software to do one function when you can do it for the cost of burning an ISO but that is chastised because you said it was so...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I guess Windows users automatically veto anything that does not imply spending $10,000 for software to do one function when you can do it for the cost of...

Nah. In my experience they just ask friends if they happen to have a copy of the software that they can "borrow".

Edited 2008-11-22 19:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by DrillSgt on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Well lets see, you could run a caching name server, for your home network..."

Why would you do this on a machine that is not always on? Just because you can do something, does not mean it makes sense or is reasonable to do so. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by tobyv on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 08:37 UTC in reply to "Windows Me or Windows 7?"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

There is no 16-bit code in the NT kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by Traumflug on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 09:26 UTC in reply to "Windows Me or Windows 7?"
Traumflug Member since:
2008-05-22

The Intel Atom is a 32-bit processor, so no 64-bit OSs on common netbooks in the near future.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The Intel Atom is a 32-bit processor, so no 64-bit OSs on common netbooks in the near future.


The Atom is 64bit capable, but the portable models have it disabled for now. I guess Intel figures that 64bit doesn't make sense (yet) on netbooks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by bnolsen on Sat 22nd Nov 2008 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

seriously? I can't install a 64bit distro on a netbook? That would definitely be enough to be a deal breaker for me buying one of the current generation netbooks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by BrianH on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would you want to install a 64bit OS on a netbook? The instructions are larger which reduces memory bandwidth, something that matters on the slow processors that netbooks have, and you can't install the extra memory that 64bit would give you. I don't see the upside to 64bit here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by bnolsen on Sun 23rd Nov 2008 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

All my other machines are 64bit and it's nice to run the same platform? What software I develop isn't supported on 32bit anymore?

Also I'd like to see 64bit performance numbers (not windows) on Atom first to really see what the tradeoffs are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by lemur2 on Mon 24th Nov 2008 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

seriously? I can't install a 64bit distro on a netbook? That would definitely be enough to be a deal breaker for me buying one of the current generation netbooks.


64-bit OS isn't really a necessity for the current generation of netbooks ... these machines have limited RAM (typically 1GB or 512MB) and often have limited disk space. A 32-bit OS makes more sense.

If you have the source code, BTW, then it makes precious little difference between a 32-bit OS and a 64-bit OS. The only reason why this would be an issue is if you had some applications for which you had only a binary copy of the executable. In that case it makes a difference what the OS is.

But even then that shouldn't really be a concern ... if you have binary-only copies of an application, it is almost certain to be a proprietary closed-source application. You normally aren't supposed to install such on more than one machine, so you would just buy a new copy of the application (target for the correct OS that you have installed) ... wouldn't you?

Shame that for many commercial proprietary applications, each additional such application would cost more than the netbook hardware ...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by sbergman27 on Mon 24th Nov 2008 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

64-bit OS isn't really a necessity for the current generation of netbooks ...

64 bit isn't really a necessity for the current generation of *desktops*, and a goodly portion of the current generation of *servers*.

Actually, a 64 bit kernel with a 32 bit user space makes more sense in a lot of those instances with 800+ MB of ram.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows Me or Windows 7?
by woegjiub on Tue 25th Nov 2008 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows Me or Windows 7?"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

AMD's new ultra-mobile CPU will be 64-bit, so it's not really all that strange...

Reply Score: 1