Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Aug 2012 13:12 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "It'll be a full x86 device - Lenovo calls a 'joint effort' with Intel and Microsoft - that clocks in at 1.3 pounds with a 10.1-inch 1366 x 768 display. It's billed to have 10-hour battery life, which would be impressive for a device only 9.8mm thick. The standard model is Wi-Fi-only, but there will also be carrier versions including one with AT&T's LTE connectivity." If you see a 1366x768 resolution on a 10.1" display, they blew it.
Thread beginning with comment 530502
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Again - it should cost nothing for OEMs to sell their computers without any OS. But it'll undermine MS interests (too easy to use alternatives in such case), that's why MS "convinces" them with offering discounts on condition of prohibiting a no OS option. It's totally irrelevant what number of users would want that. They want to prevent it altogether, and that's oppressive.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:47 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think its rather naive to assume it'll cost nothing. You're just upset they don't sell you their product packaged up the way you want it. Oppressive is just the crutch you use.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:56 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

May be not nothing, but less than what they pay for Windows anyway. So the only one who is loosing from a no OS option is MS. OEMs do offer a no OS option for corporate buyers, since MS has less control over that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Fri 10th Aug 2012 07:09 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Again - it should cost nothing for OEMs to sell their computers without any OS. But it'll undermine MS interests (too easy to use alternatives in such case), that's why MS "convinces" them with offering discounts on condition of prohibiting a no OS option. It's totally irrelevant what number of users would want that. They want to prevent it altogether, and that's oppressive.


Oppression is what people in countries with dictatorships regimes have to suffer everyday.

What Microsoft does is called business, no one from Microsoft is pointing guns to OEM workers forcing them to make decisions to use Windows on their products.

Any OEM company is free to licentiate another OS, or even make their own. If instead, they prefer to get in bed with Microsoft is because what they gain out of the deal brings them more money home.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 10th Aug 2012 07:40 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

What Microsoft does is called business

Yes, unethical and oppressive business, or in other terms - abusive monopoly.

Reply Parent Score: 2