It seems Lenovo is being selective in which markets get Linux on its new range of IdeaPad netbooks. “People in most markets Lenovo serves, including Singapore, China and the UK, will be offered the company’s new IdeaPad S10 with either Microsoft Windows XP or a Linux OS, but Australian and US computer buyers will only be offered Windows XP according to Lenovo.“
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07/14/asus_linux_eee_901_famine/
Here Lenovo points fingers towards Intel, but I still fail to understand why they scrapped Linux. Why didn’t they scrap Windows?
Hey, Lenovo, that’s make a deal. Bush stops criticizing the state of human rights in China (it won’t make any difference anyway), and we get a choice of XP or Linux. OK?
Simple. They listened to market research, which probably found that there is no customer demand for desktop Linux.
That sentiment is basically true, but you can’t demand what you’ve never heard of. Linux needs more publicity and exposure before demand will increase. Unfortunately, due to the non-commercial nature (which is good), Linux in general doesn’t have any kind of conventional advertising (at least not in Australia), just word of mouth.
And unfortunally Lenovo followed the rule of not supplying what market doesn’t demand (but only because it haven’t heard about it!) with the overall desing of those laptops…
Specifically – like every netbook out there they have borderline usable/too small touchpad.
And they could be the best out there if only, instead touchpad, they intergrated trackpoint…
(yes, I know – touchpad vs. trackpoint is a “personal preference”, however…there is a moment when touchpad becomes prustrating due to too small size)
>> Specifically – like every netbook out there they have
>> borderline usable/too small touchpad.
I haven’t seen the Lenevo, but the trackpad on the EeePC 901 is very nearly as big as the one on my 17″ HP Pavilion.
This probably would be fine *except* that Microsoft was convicted of anti-trust…abuse of their monopoly position in the US.
That makes things somewhat more complicated. Its unfortunate part of the anti trust settlement didn’t include breaking MS’s ability to make exclusive OEM agreements which is at the root of their illegal anti competitive behavior.
What does that have to do with the decision by a given vendor (Lenovo) to decide what OS it wants to offer its customers? Anti- trust law is about promoting competition. It isn’t about picking winners.
Um, no, wrong. I don’t know where you got that idea, but MS is FORBIDDEN to have exclusive OEM contracts under the terms of the anti-trust settlement; in fact, the DOJ has a representative on-site at the Microsoft campus who reviews OEM contracts. So, in fact, there is no “illegal anti-competitive behavior” anymore. Microsoft can’t get away with that. Of course, that won’t stop people like you from spreading this FUD endlessly.
One of the fundamental issues in Antitrust is whether a company with a strong market position in one aspect of the market is excluding competitors illegally, through collusion contracts (agreements which forbid customers from buying or using competitor’s products), or whether they are excluding competitiors in other markets through the use of their strong market position in their monopoly market.
For example, IBM has substantial market share in numerous markets, but the corporate organization is specifically designed to prevent exclusion of competitors. For example, Oracle runs well (better when properly tuned) than DB2 on AIX. DB2 runs on Linux and Windows as well as AIX and MVS. This was a deliberate attempt to avoid antitrust actions back in the 1970s, and has turned out to be good business.
Google actually PROMOTES the flow of advertizing revenue directly to other content providers. They don’t “frame” or otherwise alter the content displayed by the referenced links.
Microsoft has been trying to get control of companies like Viacom and Yahoo, with the intent of having them attempt to prevent Google from indexing their content (something which anyone can do quite easily).
One plaintiff started to sue Google, and when Google documented how easily they could have their content excluded from Google and You-Tube sites, and offered to do it immediately, they quickly dropped the whole suit, because they only wanted Google to pay them more, rather than loosing the Google references (which accounted for a substantial portion of their advertizing revenue stream).
Microsoft on the other hand, deliberately and willfully excludes competitors through technical provisions in their OEM and Corporate License Agreements.
They are very careful not to write the exclusionary language directly into the licenses, but rather evade prosecution by having the licensee aggree to get “Prior Written Approval from Microsoft” for any alterations to the bootstrap sequence, any advertising which uses the Microsoft trademarks or Logos, and any benchmarks in which Microsoft products are compared and referenced by trademark.
This sounds like a legitimate request. For example, Disney set the precedent when a T-shirt company was printing shirts with Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and Goofy stoned out of their minds and smoking a hooka.
Microsoft used this right to “protect the brand” to prevent the publication of benchmarks it didn’t like, to prevent advertizing that mentioned a choice of both Microsoft products and competitors products, especially if positive comments (such as product vendor’s promotional description) were also contained in the ad.
Microsoft doesn’t state emperically that Trademark and Copyright licensees are not allowed to promote competitor products.
Instead, they simply approve “All Microsoft” materials almost immediately, while the meterials promoting a competitor’s products seem to get “lost” at the desk or in-box of some lawyer who must spend 80% of his time playing golf or doing something other than approving the requests.
Microsoft knows what the deadlines are for these ads, and all they have to do is delay any requests for revisions until after the deadline has passed, then provide requests for changes that they know the OEM or retailer won’t bother to return (since they’ve already missed the market window).
The same is true with configuration. Microsoft doesn’t tell Dell, HP, or Lenovo explicitly that they CANNOT install dual-boot, or desktop virtualization configurations, they just have to delay their response until after the dates required to meet market windows.
It seems that some of the OEMs have begun to adopt the tactic of stating that no response receieved within 7 days of the request will be considered an approval, but even that can be abused by requesting lots of different changes each time a revision is submitted. This would be similar to a consultant’s client rejecting the consultant’s deliverables and asking for different revisions to delay billing for months or even years.
Perhaps the OEMs should learn the tactics of the major consulting and service providers, for example, any changes must be requested in the first draft review, and any later changes not requested in that first draft constitute a penalty or additional charges to the client. In effect, if all of the changes requested in the first draft are completed, the only valid response is that the change was not implemented properly (misspelled words in the revised copy).
Google’s deal with Yahoo are intended to help Yahoo generate more revenue from Google generated leads. It’s not an exclusionary deal, yahoo is free to make similar agreements with other search providers or referring sites.
Ironically, Microsoft’s attempts to take control of Yahoo have been for the primary purpose of excluding competitors from the Yahoo content, customer base, and content providers.
Google leads the market in revenue because they only show advertizing that is relevant to the search, and offer paid advertizors premium placement on the search result pages. As a result, prospective customers are much more likely to follow the links, and they are also more likely to make a purchase decision from one of the google provided links.
Like many other people, I have a difficult time taking unattributable hearsay seriously. But thanks for your bloviation, nonetheless.
United States has some interesting trademark and copyright laws, which Microsoft uses to exclude competitors.
For example, retailers must license the rights to use the Microsoft trademarks and logos, and one of the conditions of that license is that they must get Microsoft’s prior written approval before taking any action that might “damage the brand”.
This was how Microsoft prevented IBM from being able to sell OS/2 and forced them to accept Windows 95 exclusively. The retailers were told that if they put an OS/2 machine right next to a Windows machine, it would damage the Microsoft brand (since Warp 4.0 was much more impressive in it’s capabilities). As a result, the retailers were told that if they turned on a PC with OS/2 on the display shelf, they would have to stop using the Microsoft brands. This meant that they would have to turn off all of the computers on the the display floor.
In other countries, this would be considered collusion, and retailers who excluded competitors could become codefendents with Microsoft in a collusion lawsuit.
Corel licensed their Linux to a number of motherboard manufacturers, offering it for 50 cents per copy. They were prepared to sue the OEMs for collusion when Microsoft staged a proxy war and had the CEO overthrown.
Several motherboard makers are now offering “Linux in Flash” on their motherboards, and again, OEMs who willingly engage in conspiring to exclude competitors such as Red Hat, Ubuntu, or Novell, could find themselves in a similar situation of being named as codefendents in collusion lawsuits.
In some countries, like the US, it’s harder to prove collusion. In other countries, simply the act of effectively excluding a competitor who has already contracted a presence (via the motherboard makers) is enough to consitute a provable collusion case.
maybe if people push them… lenovo will put linux available everywhere?
with linux, it interest me
Or maybe you should just be happy that Lenovo bothered to support Linux at all.
I’m unhappy, because they chose not to support Linux here, in Australia. So if I want to buy one of these, I’m forced to buy Windows. If it were a technological issue, then it would affect all territories, but it’s not. It’s the almighty buck. Microsoft have virtually unchallenged market share in Australia – even more-so than other countries.
Sorry. China probably views Australia and the U.S. as markets flush with cash. Your neighbors actually need Linux. If they can sell you the computer then maybe they can sell you Microsoft Office and their other Windows doodads. If they sell you Linux you can fend for yourself and be better off than any Windows user and they know it..
Sorry for my previous post, I got it all mixed up. Lenovo is not Asus, obiously
It is somewhat telling that you automatically thought asus when netbooks were mentioned.
It shows how much mindshare asus still has despite their apparent desire to completely dilute the eee brand.
Stop whining everyone, it’s not like you can’t still install linux on it; besides, XP is the better system anyways.
hm.. XP on a low resource system versus a Linux based OS on a low resource system..
hm.. XP’s limited flexability or the entire library offered by linust based OS repositories..
hm…
hope you won’t mind if I stick with XP for playing video games and other platforms when I need to do anything else.
Compared to XP’s minimum requirements (300mhz, 64mb ram), the S10 isn’t low-resource at all; also, what do you mean by flexibility? What isn’t flexible about XP?
Come on…
Have you ever tried to run an XP desktop on 256MB RAM or less? That’s a painful experience, let me tell you.
XP’s min req’s are a joke. Now I’m quite sure that on the EEE pc’s hardware it runs just fine, since that’s more or less equivalent with a 1Ghz PIII and the memory is more than sufficient to run XP confortably (512 would do, so 1GB is plenty), but please don’t quote XP’s requirements…
Yes, almost as painful as trying to run OS X or any modern Linux distro in under 512MB of RAM.
Latest Ubuntu runs very well on 256 mb of RAM. Install is a bit “longer” tho.
On another note, did you hear the joke about Microsoft Windows Server 2008 and Debian?
Do you know what’s the difference between the two? Debian runs on P100 with 32mb of RAM (and can provide quite a good router/firewall too).
Have you ever actually used linux, or are you just spouting mindless rhetoric? I have three computers in the house, two running Ubuntu, one running Mandriva. One of the machines using Ubuntu is running quite well with 128MB of RAM, thanks to the lightweight desktop environment xfce. If not for a couple of small annoyances with how xfce works, I’d be using it on all of my computers.
No, I would never use Open Sores Eunuchs – or their silly XWindows. Everyone nows that Microsoft makes the best Windows.
Mandriva, Debian or Ubuntu won’t be as plesent on 256 meg ram but try Xubuntu or go for a real low resource distro like Damn Small.
(Seems Ubuntu is happy on 256 from other comments; not my prfered distro so what do I know)
Edited 2008-08-08 14:01 UTC
I’m posting this from a 1GHz PIII Compaq workstation with 256MB of memory and Windows 2000. Eight years ago when it was new, it was an absolute speed demon. Now, it positively crawls on the internet, though it is no different otherwise. And this is a fresh install, with the latest updates and almost no extra processes running.
Why is this? It’s because the web has become so bloated with AJAX, Flash and other resource-hogging “features” that this once robust machine is brought to its knees. A great example is YouTube. I can play a DVD quality DivX video in VLC without any frames dropped or audio sync lost, yet a low quality, low bandwidth video on YouTube looks like a bad PowerPoint presentation. I get maybe one frame every second. Flash 9 wasn’t built and compiled on a PIII, it was optimized for today’s dual core, 1GB+ “average” systems. I can go to Wal-Mart and get an e-Machines piece-of-crap-in-a-box that would run circles around this machine for under $400.
My point? It’s not XP whose requirements have changed; it’s how we use our computers. XP will still install and run on a Pentium II with 128MB of RAM, but about the only thing you can do with it is run software from that machine’s era. You can’t browse the modern web, and you can’t run anything but the most basic software from five or more years ago.
Keep in mind too, the S10 and all those other little machines may only be 1GHz in raw processor speed, but the processors and chipsets are two generations more advanced than an actual PIII system. Remember the Pentium II at 233MHz? It wasn’t just 33MHz faster than a Pentium 200MMX, it was an order of magnitude faster for most operations. Another example: My workstation’s memory runs at 133MHz, whereas most netbooks are at roughly three times that or better, and memory speed can be a real bottleneck nowadays. No, I’m pretty sure most of these little notebooks are more than up to today’s standards, given moderate computing needs.
I’m posting this from a 1GHz PIII Compaq workstation with 256MB of memory and Windows 2000.
…
I can play a DVD quality DivX video in VLC without any frames dropped or audio sync lost, yet a low quality, low bandwidth video on YouTube looks like a bad PowerPoint presentation. I get maybe one frame every second.
there must be something wrong with your setup
i’m posting this from a 500mhz p3m with 192mb ram and win xp sp2, and have no such problems.
youtube runs great, but thanks to ff3, you can’t do other things while watching a video.
Eh, it could be that I’m in Firefox 3, or it could be that I’m using the onboard video (Intel i815). I’ll play around with a few things; I’m just setting this up for a family member anyway, so any performance enhancements would be great for her.
Sorry I’m replying twice but OSNews won’t let me edit my other comment to you. It was just as I suspected; Firefox 3 is slowing down Flash for some strange reason. I also bumped up the shared video memory to the max setting, which seems to have helped a bit as well. Thanks for the suggestion mate.
Edited 2008-08-07 23:48 UTC
Uhm, while it’s true that we have a lot more bloatware nowadays, you can still easily find properly optimised apps. To the point that my main PC, with no major part younger than 6 years, feels faster than any a64/c2d I worked on (but – those were machines of “consumers”, riddled with bloatware)
You mention one app that you use, VLC…but you can still find better optimised ones (smplayer for example, and basically anything based on mplayer). And you have out there also miranda, xchat, Opera, utorrent, foobar, 7-zip, Foxit, Irfanview…the list goes on; all of them with many features and constantly maintained…
I also have here dual pII 266 with 192mb of ram, and it’s quite usable with the above apps (though on win2k; oh, and no flash/browser plugins…)
My point? Even when it comes to software beeing put on netbooks people are simply wastefull…~half of the specs of current models could be plenty.
PS. Something is wrong with your flash installation – on Athlon XP 1700+ (1,46GHz, has only SSE1, just like your cpu) Youtube videos play quite fine in fullscreen.
AJAX calls are run locally in your browser, yes, but they pull a lot less from the server than pages that don’t use it, so you aren’t likely to see much of a slow down from a page that uses Ajax vs. a page that doesn’t.
Also, speed on old computers or the ability to run an OS on any given computer isn’t what makes it great, in my opinion, it is the tools, options, and abilities that the OS provides, and how seamlessly it provides them, that make it great. It’s all about the power and the user’s access to that power.
I’m sorry, but given that criteria, no Windows OS is great. You have some Windows versions that are better than other Windows version, but you really can’t call any of them great.
Check out some of my other posts in this thread and you’ll see that I wholeheartedly agree with you. An OS is a tool and some tools are better than others at what they do. Personally, I tend to avoid Windows as much as possible unless I have to use it. The less time I have to spend plugging holes, the more I have to actually work.
For my own needs? I prefer:
– more robust and less limited network stack
– more complete 64bit and multicore support
– higher potential level of security and visibility
– higher rate of response to reported software flaws
– easier addition and removal of software from a larger library
– less encumbered license allowing duplication and addition of installs
– more modular customizable design for specific solutions
– more specialized builds for specific needs
– more efficient use of limited resources
– more flexible cli environment
– more complete network integration
There are some benefits in liveCD builds also
– more cpu and machine mobile bootable OS
– more specialized bootable OS for various needs
– greater selection of system utilities on liveboot by default
My area of expertise is as a generalist with specialties in security, networking and operating systems. Having a strong network stack, wide selection of security tools and support of standards is important. Using only Windows would limit the number of tools I can use. Not using Windows at all would also cancel out some win32/64 only tools I use. My time is primarily spent in a *nix environment with a win32 VM on the side for Windows only tools as needed.
I enjoy the more complete 64bit support for my hardware. The difference between a 32bit and 64bit *nix system is recompiling the source against 64bit libraries instead of the previous 32bit; the only 32bit only software remaining is third party binaries from companies like Adobe (why is 64bit Flash Player so difficult to produce?). I also have all four cores doing something which is very handy for running multiple VM concurrently with what your doing on your host OS. With Windows, I would still be working on getting 64bit “upgrades†of my old software or run a dirty 32bit/64bit mixed system. I would also not be able to run as many VM concurrently and as efficiently; I’ve tested the same VM under the same virtualizer on both platforms and Windows was noticeably unresponsive in comparison.
Higher potential security; not many people taking notebooks running Windows to Black Hat, Hope or other security industry conferences. I break my systems to learn how to keep other’s systems from being breeched; security is far more important than being pretty enough to shine off a store shelf. The higher rate of response when vulnerabilities are found is pretty important too. Outside of the Windows/Apple market, updates are a good thing indicating continued evolution and improvement of software. The marketing execs at the previously mentioned two seem to feel it is a mark against there bulletproof public image. (yeah, there’s never been issues with tcp/ip or dns in osX)
Systems build for a specific use tend to be very specialized and my own workstation install grows organically a-la-“install on first use†type approach. Being able to modularly customize a solution for its purpose is important. Being able to add anything out of the network repositories with a single two second command is also handy. After each voluntary reinstall of my own system, I end up with just what I actually use added back in. Licenses would also become an issue quickly with the number of systems I built or duplicate for various tasks (VMware is fantastic). Also, as someone who collects OS the way other’s collect baseball cards; I wouldn’t have much to explore if I stuck to Windows only.
I also benefit from the ability to run light distributions on more limited hardware. Even Mandriva 2008 runs better on my old CF27 than WinXP does. I have both installed to support various tools and the Windows boot is not nearly as pleasurable to work with (I need more ram in that beast). I’ve also found SystemRescue and Damn Small handy when fixing other’s machines.
The more flexible and powerful cli environment is also important to my mucking with machines. From the much larger selection of programs and commands to the metric ton of scripting support, there is just more power there. At any time I have a minimum of four terminals on one of my desktops performing various tasks.
My machines all work securely and transparently over the network. I’m often using a notebook from one room to run a program off my workstation in another room. My machines all have rdesktop for when I need a Windows machine remotely but it’s not the seamless approach that *nix has with networking being it’s native environment.
LiveCDs are a whole other area of benefits. I can’t leave home without at least four or five various liveCD in my toolbag. My dayjob issued notebook runs a Mandriva liveCD when not being used for work tasks. SystemRescue and Knoppix are both indespensible when working on broken Windows systems. I’ve a few security tools on liveCD with no Windows counterpart. I do need to add some Bart Windows disks to my toolbag though.
While I use both platforms and spend most of my time outside of Windows, using only Windows is simply not flexible and powerful enough for my personal needs. It does have a few limited Windows only uses that it does fairly well (still no stable sound in Assassin’s Creed from “just works with everything†Windows).
XP has a lower potential for security. It is less flexible in the cli environment. It is less flexible in terms of what software is ready and waiting to be installed or cleanly uninstalled. It has a smaller selection of professional tools for what I do. It is less customizably flexible for specific solutions (not every server has to be a full Windows Everything server). It has less support for open standards and picks up hardware support slower (bluetooth didn’t work on Windows first). I can not put XP on as great a range of resources and cpu. I can not duplicate or build additional XP installs on a whim while still respecting copywrite licenses.
Windows does run my video games (mostly runs them anyhow), does support Windows protocols properly (for testing) and does run C&A (handy tool). Right now, that’s all it does for me.
Jabbotts, I was about to warn you against wasting your time feeding to trolls like lollyn00b – until it occurred to me that you probably don’t run (around after) many Windows machines and probably have a shortage of ways you can waste your time.
Oh yeah, Linux runs GREAT on low-resource systems. Almost as well as, say, Windows 98.
Oh don’t worry, I’m fairly certain no one cares.
Anything productive to add or where you just overjoyed by the chance to open your mouth and troll an little?
I resent the implication. I do not noes who this “An Little” is, nor have I ever attempted to troll her.
You, on the other hand? Looks like you’ve been trolled, son.
Let me get this straight: you do not “noes” ? That’s a funny way to make fun of another’s spelling.
Better for who? You perhaps, a bunch of other people, sure. But for some of us, Linux is clearly a better choice on such limited hardware. Personally, since I don’t have any software requiring Windows, I’ll take a leaner, faster, more robust and more secure Linux OS over Microsoft’s one-size-fits-all approach. On a compromised machine like this, Windows suddenly is not the most viable option for everyone.
Keep in mind I’m not saying Lenovo should stop offering XP on their netbooks. I’m all for choice in the OS game and I firmly believe in using the tool that gets the job done best. It’s been my experience though, that just because a piece of hardware can run Windows doesn’t mean it will do so as efficiently as a competing OS. Just like I wouldn’t try to shoehorn Leopard onto my fiance’s G3 PowerBook, I’d never buy a netbook with any version of Windows to slow it down.
No, no, you’re not thinking like a Freetard.
Try this – look in the mirror and say to yourself:
“Everyone else is inherently obligated to accommodate any and every random whim I have, no matter how irrational. And if someone isn’t fast enough bending-over-backwards for me, then I’m perfectly entitled to whine and complain until I’m blue in the face.”
That should get you a little bit more into their mindset.
Obviously, MS has broke a deal with lenovo, but those deals are illegal everywhere except in Australia and the US. I know in the EU at least, such anti-competitive deals are illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that while a few companies (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) do sell Linux, there is no “Linux Inc.” for Microsoft to directly compete with. It wouldn’t be anti-competitive for Microsoft and a laptop maker to go exclusive, but it would be anti-consumer.
Frankly, I’m glad Lenovo and all the other netbook makers are offering XP along with Linux. Not only does it give customers who rely on Windows an opportunity for a machine with no optical drive to have XP preloaded, it also puts Linux right up there with Windows so that the average Joe User sees it as a true alternative.
The vast majority of home computer users only do internet and light productivity, hence the market for these things in the first place. Windows is only absolutely necessary to the average user when there is no alternative to a Windows-only program they have to use, or for hardcore gamers. The latter category won’t be gaming on a netbook anyway. That means, learning curve aside, a netbook with a fully-supported installation of Linux would be the perfect computer for most people, and even save them the cost of the OS license.
Well it’s called “linked sales” in the EU. It’s anti-competitive because you can’t choose. Technically, in the EU, all computer maker must provide the option to buy the computer with no OS if you want to install your own. Practically, they do install XP and provide the option to remove it and get a refund, but after a very long process, letters and phone calls so nobody does it. But anyway, it is illegal in the EU to bundle the computer and the OS without the option to choose another one because it is considered anti-competitive. Therefore, in the EU, they can’t make an exclusive deal without breaking the law (not that that stops MS, but Lenovo perhaps wants to abide by the law). They have to provide the option to buy the computer without the OS. So they provide it with linux, since MS can’t give them money to stop that.
Note that in the EU, MS should give the option to remove IE from Windows as it is linked sale, but they don’t care to break the law.
Thank you for the clarification, that was very informative!
Nope. It is illegal in Australia, at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act
Time for a complaint to the ACCC, I would think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Co…
With all the competition from all the other netbook manufacturers, why wouldn’t Lenovo offer both 9″ & 10″ models with both XP and Linux? Seems like they are ignoring some potential customers. Asus may be going nuts with over 20 models planned, but at least they will have something for every potential customer. I would like the 9″ Linux version of the ideabook, but Lenovo doesn’t want to sell it in the USA.
‘Obviously, MS has broke a deal with Lenovo, but those deals are illegal everywhere except in Australia and the US. I know in the EU at least, such anti-competitive deals are illegal.’
What Microsoft doesn’t understand is itself.
Seriously, the company believes its business model will win ‘uber alles’. It a blind marketing fanaticism which will eventually be its own poison.
We Linux users just sit back and wait.
As for the Lenovo laptop. Having a loli-pop operating system, like Windows, is easily replaceable with a Linux install DVD.
What Microsoft doesn’t understand is itself.
Meanwhile, apparently in its “confusion”, it continues to earn billions of dollars. God, I wish that I could be so confused… ;-p
…and wait… and wait…
The rest of us who are less dogmatic about our choice of operating system continue to use Windows to get our work done.
I get more done in a typical day of business than most of the Windows sys admins do in two or three. This also depends if there is a Solitaire contest going on.
It may be that I am just on task and know how to get things moving forward and accomplished. Who knows? I say that having ‘been’ a Windows only systems admin for nearly six continuous years.
I do know that if I ‘need’ to touch a Windows server all I need to do is rdesktop into it. There is absolutely zero need to run any Microsoft software on my desktop or the servers.
Personally, I don’t need to purchase brand new equipment or an operating system to get work done. At work, we’ve saved several hundred thousand dollars per year on just licensing alone. There is even more savings with re-purposed equipment.
The old proprietary model, while still making money for Bill, Steve and other Microsoft marketing billionaires, is obsolete.
Obsolete? Then, how would you explain the fact that Linux is losing market share to Windows Server?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-…
Not really.
As an Aussie consumer, what I will do regarding the Lenovo is … ignore it, and buy either an Acer Aspire One or a Dell E instead.
I would have considered an ASUS EEEPC if not for the relatively feeble Linux OS distribution the EEEPC offers.
Why bother with the Lenovo and wiping Windows and installing Linux on it instead when I can more easily get the required levels of functionality by buying a Netbook PC from another vendor who is willing to offer me a decent offering.
There is, after all, plenty of choice in this market.
http://www.liliputing.com/
Most models will offer me a decent Linux option. Who cares about Lenovo, who apparently won’t?
I was able to install and use WinXP SP3 on the first Asus EeePC 701 (4Gb, 512Mb Ram, Celeron 900Mhz). I had no problem using Word or Excel or Firefox/Thunderbird.
So, if I could do all that on the low 701, I think WinXP will do just fine on this new Lenovo. The CPU is faster, more memory, bigger storage.
For me, it’s easier to find the apps that I want/need under Windows than Linux.
Why is it when I try finding Word and Excel for Windows XP or Vista it costs me several hundred dollars? If as a Windows user you are not stealing it, “software”, then purchasing it will drive up your cost and the computer isn’t so cheap….
$1000 for a Linux with everything.
$1000 Windows computer with nothing.
Please, apples to apples. If you *must* buy Office for Windows, then you have no option for Linux.
If you are able to use OpenOffice for Linux, then you can also do that on XP.
Nice straw man. He just got blown away…
“Please, apples to apples.”
Laptop and Operating Systems with Office Applications
Linux Open Office $1000
Linux with Microsoft Office $1200
Windows with Open Office $1000
Windows with Microsoft Office $1200
Same perfectly reasonable comparison. If the purchaser has $1200 he could buy Windows with Office but he won’t have $200 for gaming.
“Nice straw man. He just got blown away… ”
Now about the straw man, it’s nice you know this term.
But so far your just inhaling! Explain what I said/did that was correct or wrong.
Edited 2008-08-08 18:48 UTC
Why Should I give a damn. It’s not business grade, It’s a lenovo technology, not IBM, It appears to have the same exact internals including motherboard as the Acer Aspire One, but in a different packaging (all Intel), so Why should I care about a brand-name? All of these netbooks have One thing in common, They rely on Microsoft for sales, so they bastardize these potentially powerful Laptops for cheap just to appease Microsoft to preserve their monopoly. Businesswise it makes sense, but morally, this is an outrage.
Is that these manufacturers Are deliberately bastardizing these netbooks in their choice of Operating systems. They could use the crowd favorite, such as Ubuntu Mobile edition or a full fledged Ubuntu, RHEL, or Fedora. But instead they choose off distros that nobody knows about.
HP used SLED — horribly implemented at that
Asus used a bastardized Xandros — horribly out of date
Acer is using an Off distro named Linpus
Lenovo is doing the same.
ALl these manufacturers have in common the same thing. THEY appear to be forced to use a Linux Distro that wold hurt sales of linux based equipment in favor of Microsoft.
Linpus is based on Fedora 8.
The Dell E will almost certainly use Ubuntu Remix.
These two will have the market between them, I would think … for the very reasons you state … all of the others seem to have deliberately chosen a weaker Linux option.
Edited 2008-08-09 12:35 UTC
Why would they do this?
You seem to be suggesting that Microsoft is pulling strings here? Is there any evidence of this? I’m not talking about SPECULATION. I’m talking about evidence. Just curious.
Here’s a Link Sir:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/145719/microsoft_to_l…