Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: ASUS, ACER, Lenovo, HP, and Dell too? Re: ASUS Said to be Running Back to GNU/Linux Sub-notebooks

Hash: SHA1

____/ Rex Ballard on Sunday 25 Oct 2009 06:31 : \____

> On Oct 23, 7:09 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> ____/ 7 on Friday 23 Oct 2009 20:47 : \____
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> Asus Eee PC 1008HA could make return to Linux
>> >> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >> | There is no word on the type of distribution of
>> >> | the OS, but with the move back to Linux as some
>> >> | might perceive it to be might very well be the
>> >> | start of moving back to SSDs instead of hard
>> >> | drives for netbooks.
> The package that came with the EEE 4G was very simple, but very
> functional.  Not only did you have the typical Office and Browser
> applications, but you also got Skype, PDA software, and lots of nice
> games.  It was also easy to add software.  If you needed root
> priviledges, you had to use sudu, which stopped most would-be viruses
> in their tracks.
> The difference in cost the Windows version and the Linux version was
> about 100% more, because you needed more RAM and a hard drive PLUS the
> cost of Window XP licenses.  The difference in retail prices was only
> 50%, which meant that profits were much smaller.
>> >http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2009/10/asus_eee_pc_2008ha_could...
>> > Linux made them more money than micoshaft ever did and kick started the
>> > craze for netbooks. They were stupid to go back to windump OS that resulted
>> > in massive inventory pile up with unsellable machines. Windump OS DOES NOT
>> > sell netbooks. They could have made even more money by marketing with
>> > compiz and 3D translucent desktops that management and executives buy into
>> > within 30 seconds of having seen it in action.> >> `----
> I've noticed that most Netbooks, even those with Windows XP
> preinstalled, have no trouble running the major Linux distributions.
>> > If they don't believe it, then prove it with your own desktop user
>> > studies!!!
> The irony is that the Windows netbooks had specifications almost
> identical to the high end laptops of the Windows XP era.  In effect,
> the only major difference was the cost of the size of the display.
> Unfortunately, most Windows applications do not run well on the small
> display, and you can't easily make an external display your primary
> display.  I purchased a Lenovo S10 with XP because it was on clearance
> at $279 compared to the $379 prices of most of the Window 7 ready
> netbooks.  I qualify for the free upgrade according to Microsoft, but
> once I upgrade I can't go back.
> I wanted to run some video capture software to convert VHS tapes to
> mpeg or dvd, but when I tried to run the software it said my display
> was too small.  I plugged in an external monitor and set the
> resolution to 1200x1024 but the application kept checking only the
> primary display, so I still couldn't run it.  And of course, every
> time I boot the laptop, even with the external display, Windows warns
> me that the 1024x600 resolution is too low to be functional with
> Windows XP.
> Did a Linux installation, shrinking the XP partition and installing
> RHEL 5 on the remaining space.  Linux was quite happy to let me use
> the smaller display, and the display was quite functional.  The
> Firefox and konqueror web browsers allowed me to "zoom out", giving me
> a nice display that let me visit my favorite web sites.  OpenOffice
> and Lotus Symphony both worked fine, on either the little netbook
> display or on the external display.
> Alas, I was not able to find a good video converter to work with my
> gigaware video converter, but I didn't look very hard either.
> The good news was that I was able to start a VMWare image of XP on the
> big display and an external USB drive, and that let me run the
> converter software, which assumed that I had a 1024x768 display.
>> Asus used to have a /distinguisher/ -- their own Free (libre) OS. No more.
>> Their profit collapsed 95%  shortly after they had embraced Windows.
> ASUS, Acer, and MSI all had Linux versions of their netbooks
> initially.  There were two problems.  First, there were high return
> rates from people who had received the netbooks as Christmas gifts.
> The little ingrates returned the gift from grandma and had their
> parents pony up extra cash for either full-size laptops or netbooks
> that ran Windows XP.

Only MSI spoke about this return rate issue because it implemented Linux poorly (SLED
thrown in without proper adjustment) . ASUS CEO said the return rates were the same for
both platforms and Dell said so too. Acer never commented on this AFAIK.

> The other problem was that Microsoft was threatening to revoke the OEM
> licenses for Vista on the big laptops, and threatening to drop ASUS
> boards from their "supported hardware" list for Windows 7.
> It's worth noting that Acer and Lenovo have already started a price
> war on Windows 7 laptops and netbooks.  This could directly threaten
> Microsoft's reputation for being the key to big profits, at least
> during the first 6-9 months after a new OS is released.
> Another concern is that for all Windows releases except Windows 2000,
> the initial configurations of the hardware when the OS was first
> release, was insufficient to actually do "real work" on the new
> laptops or desktops.  Remember when Vista first came out with 2
> gigabytes of RAM and 160 gigabyte drives?  Almost immediately, it
> became apparent that 3 gig was the minimum needed and 4 gigabytes was
> what was needed for real world applications like Office 7, Firefox,
> and Project - if you wanted to run them all at the same time.
> Most people want more than just a IE and Works.  Real users run
> applications that Microsoft usually doesn't test on the new OS.  When
> the new OS doesn't run those applications, they  have to wait for the
> vendors of those applications to publish upgrades that run on the new
> OS, and they usually have to purchase the upgrades or purchase brand
> new software.

Vista 7 has the same issues. Average consumers have begun talking about it (most
users of Vista 7 thus far have been TechNet/MSDN subscribers and Windows fans
who know their way around).

> How many people, who have recently purchased an XP or Vista machine,
> are willing to trash that machine, buy a new machine, buy new
> software, and buy back-up hardware, after spending 3-6 months doing
> the same process only a few months ago?
> How many CIOs who have adopted Vista are going to be willing to go to
> the CEO and the CTO and request even more money for Windows 7 upgrades
> to hardware, software, and applications.

Surveys have already shown that many CIOs reject Vista 7. I posted links to

> And how much longer are the OEMs willing to sell Windows 7 machines at
> a loss, while Apple sells their machines at 80% profit margits because
> they offer UNIX and Windows, WITH SUPPORT FOR BOTH - on the same
> machine, running at the same time.

See how Apple's profits skyrocketted (Red Hat's too, up 39%) while Microsoft's
declined 18%, as per Friday's results. It's _all about margins_.

> Many companies are  planning a Linux vs Windows 7 "bake-off" sometime
> in 2010.  They will be holding off purchases until the first major
> service pack comes out, and they will be evaluating the candidate
> hardware for it's ability to run BOTH Linux and Windows 7.

Dual-booting has become a more common practice. It does not require extra
payments. Old Windows 2k and XP (transferable after Autodesk case) would do.
That's what Munich does in some areas (Win2k).

> One of the other key considerations for many of these companies is how
> Linux will be supported.  If the OEM doesn't support Linux, they may
> spend the money they would have spent on a "service plan" on support
> contracts with companies like Red Hat, Novell, IBM, or Oracle.
> Though there are alternatives to Linux, such as Solaris, it's unlikely
> that OEMs will want to replace one monopoly with another.  They might
> not want to replace a Microsoft with an Oracle monopoly, any more than
> they wanted an IBM monopoly of OS/2.  With Linux, they have aggressive
> competition between 4-5 major vendors, all willing to provide the
> desired support, since that is the primary source of revenue for Linux
> distributors.
> At the same time, the corporate customers already own their XP
> licenses.  Microsoft can't tell them they can't install Windows, even
> installing Windows XP or Windows 2000 as a virtualized client of
> Linux.  This may be a far more desirable option, especially if the
> long-term plan is to wean employees from Microsoft-only applications
> and adopt Java based applications and other application that can be
> "write once run on Linux, Mac, and Windows".
> This may also make the WINE project more attractive as well.  Vendors
> may even want to include the WINE libraries for Linux, so that they
> can advertize that their wares will run on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes

Fachbegriffe der Informatik, HTTP:
Hot Tits Transport Pr0nocol. -- Ulrich Schwarz
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total,   1 running, 139 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index