Linonut wrote:
> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> Your OS of choice would be........????
>>
>> Mine would be a tweaked version of Linux.
>
> <boggles, then falls backward, unconscious>
Heh:-)
That "spec." that I put up, namely:-
- RAM not to exceed 1GB
- CPU not to exceed 1GHz (but Intel ATOM excepted)
- Screen not to exceed 10.2" diagonal (but NO touch screen)
- Storage not to exceed 80GB
is, of course, my own understanding of the original MS definition of what we
now call a "netbook", and represents the maximum capability for which MS were
prepared to license the "cheap" version of XP Home.
I understand that they have been gradually relaxing that spec, and are now
talking of 14.1" screens, "touch is OK", up to 160GB disks, etc.
I can understand their reasoning - they don't want to use their resurrected XP
to usurp sales of Vista, but they don't want to lose-out to Linux either in
this area. I find the whole thing quite amusing, in that the advent of these
machines seems to have caught them napping, leaving them with a major
problem. Linux scales, of course - in both directions!
Interesting though that poor old TAB starts a thread which tries to show that
Linux works only on old, slow, obsolescent machines, and then flatfish posts
to concede (and quite rightly and honestly, imo) that Linux is in fact the OS
best-suited for these very modern products!
|
|
