OSNews

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-netbook-hardware... http://apcmag.com/microsoft-revises-netbook-hardware-spec-for-windo... How does Microsoft get to specify a hardware limit? Hmmmmm? They do it by saying ... "beyond that limit, you cannot have Windos cheap". Therefore, Microsoft sets the price of Windows to OEMs depending on what machines the OEMs want Windows for. It doesn't actually matter to Microsoft's costs one whit if an OEM wants to put Windows on small machine with one, two or three GB of RAM ... but Microsoft varies the price to the OEM tremendously based on exactly that. Therefore, there is no OEM price for Windows based on what it cost Microsoft to produce. It is based only on how Microsoft wants to manipulate the market. Microsoft manipulates the OEMs using its price to OEMs. That much is easily shown. This is not illegal AFAIK, but it does tell you what goes on, and based on the market reality (where no vendor displays Windows machines and Ubuntu machines on the same hardware side-by-side in the same store) ... draw your own conclusions. "

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one side, you say that Linux is the best thing since sliced bread, much better than Windows, runs on all hardware, lower price, etc, etc. And, on the other, you claim that Microsoft's hardware spec for netbooks precludes OEMs from offering a version of Linux that could possibly run on that hardware. I'm sorry, but I call BS.

The problem isn't that no version of Linux exists that could run on MS-spec'd hardware. The problem is that nobody wants Linux. OEMs tried selling Linux, and the return rate was ungodly high. People wanted Windows and, when they discovered that their netbooks were preloaded with Linux, they were, like, "WTF?!? Where's my Windows?"

I think the worst thing about your stream of illogic is that you ascribe motives to Microsoft (eg. controlling the hardware spec, manipulating OEMs) which (a) are patently false and contrary to the objective reality of the consent decree, and (b) couldn't possibly hinder Linux, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE. This is why people have trouble taking you seriously.

I'm sorry, but I call BS.

MSI claimed the return rate was high, but when MSI put Linux on their machines they used a poor implementation of SuSe with a dodgy wireless driver.

Ask Dell (who used Ubuntu). The return rate for Linux was the same as the return rate for Windows, and it was very low.



So was the marketing claim from Redmond, which you apparently swalled whole. The actual truth lies somehwere else entirely.

You see, Dell also point out that they still sell about one third of their netbook machines with Linux.

http://blog.laptopmag.com/one-third-of-dell-inspiron-mini-9s-sold-r...

http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/Dell-Linux-vs.-Windows-...



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/dell_reality_linux_windows_...





Au contraire, it is you who have provided absolutely no backup to support your take on things.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/314907/dell_looks_linux_expand_net...

I can keep going all day here.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5214623279.html



Now this is interesting.

What I think would really sell is a very low-power 11-inch 1280x800 screen (perhaps a Pixel-Qi screen) at the overall same size as current 10-inch netbook models (by removing the wide bezel). Give it 4GB RAM, and a dual core processor at 2GHz. Make it cheap, use an SSD (say 32GB, and low power ... no moving parts) direct to the I/O system (so therefore very fast) and use a wear-levelling non-journalling filesystem. With decent design choices, such a system could easily perform better than current high-end laptops, but use so little power that they would be lightweight, still netbook-class-small, hence ultraportable, and able to run for a couple of days on a single charge.

Such a machine would gut the higher-end laptop/notebook market, IMHO.

Microsoft's problems here are many ... making it inexpensive removes headroom for Microsoft to charge for their OS. Microsoft don't have a wear-levelling filesystem. There is no use case for such a machine that would mandate expensive Windows-only proprieatary applications. People might want to use copies they already own of legacy binary-only (32 bit) applications, but a 32-bit Windows OS on a 32-bit machine can't use all of the 4GB of RAM. Microsoft's bloated OS offerings wouldn't leave much room on the SSD disk for users files. Because of the complex instruction decoders, the x86 architecture uses extra power consumption per core, so a dual core x86 doesn't make as much sense in an ultra-low-power design as an ARM chip.

Linux on such a system would have none of these issues at whatsoever. It would fly.

Microsoft don't want people to know this kind of information.

So Microsoft use their existing dominant postion to preclude innovative new non-Windows designs such as these from getting a foothold.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140343/Linux_s_share_of_net...



Edited 2009-11-05 05:00 UTC