Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Accommodating Eee With Lightweight XP

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the accomnodations-for-all dept.

386

KrispyChips writes "In what could be a first Microsoft is working to create a special build of Windows, just because Windows doesn't run very well on a certain computer. ASUS' runaway success Eee PC is now 'officially' available with Windows XP, but (according to APC magazine) is not exactly a great experience. There are none of the nice pre-loaded apps that come with the Linux version, for example. And XP has some real problems coping with the screen size and limited system specs of the unit. As a result, ASUS says it is going back to Microsoft and working on a special XP build that will be lightweight and more suited to UMPCs."

cancel ×

386 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Open Source CD (4, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076138)

This is where ASUS can come in a kickass, but bundling all the Windows versions of popular open source apps, like OpenOffice.org, GIMP, Inkscape, Audacity, MPlayer, etc.

Add in a little splash screen blurb that all of this stuff ALSO comes on the Linux EEE, which runs faster, more reliably, etc.

C'mon ASUS, whatdya say?

Re:Open Source CD (4, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076164)

ASUS is trying to get Microsoft's help. Your plan does not make that likely.

Re:Open Source CD (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076210)

Haha. Looks to me like Microsoft is trying to help themselves here. :)

New cut-down version of XP when they're just about to drop XP completely for normal systems?

I smell fear of linux gaining market share. Looks like it's already the year of Linux on the desktop. :p

Re:Open Source CD (-1, Flamebait)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076242)

Why should Microsoft dictate what ASUS preloads on their PCs?

Oh, yeah, forgot. Convicted monopoly, never punished due to new Justice Department attorneys installed by corrupt new Attorney General. Nevermind.

Re:Open Source CD (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076318)

Why should Microsoft dictate what ASUS preloads on their PCs?

Oh, yeah, forgot. Convicted monopoly, never punished due to new Justice Department attorneys installed by corrupt new Attorney General. Nevermind.
Hey, those Justice Department attorneys came pre-installed.

Re:Open Source CD (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076672)

This is seriously old news. It was mentioned when MS extended the life of XP for UMPCs a week or two ago. Asus wants to sell as much hardware as they can. They expect to sell about 3 million units this year with 40% having XP installed.

Re:Open Source CD (1, Informative)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076304)

Eee doesn't have a CD drive.

Re:Open Source CD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076358)

Eee doesn't have a CD drive.

It doesn't even have a floppy. It's obviously worthless. :p

Re:Open Source CD (3, Funny)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076470)

No floppy. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

Re:Open Source CD (5, Insightful)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076730)

ASUS is a business not an evangelist. They used linux because it was cheap and ran well on the hardware they are trying to sell, not because they want to push some agenda. Every time I hear someone talking about a company pushing Linux on the desktop over windows I think of this woman I worked with who was having an affair with a very financially successful married man. Every few months she would get all excited because the divorce papers were finally coming through and she would be recognized as his wife. Then a few weeks after she would be crying because it was going to be "just a few more months". Instead of recognizing the situations for what it was; She was just a cheap, easy lay and he was never leaving his wife, she clung onto the idea that she would eventually be his wife. Linux on the desktop is the mistress, windows is the wife, big business is the successful husband and unless the mistress puts a bullet in the wifes head the husband isn't voluntarily divorcing his wife anytime soon.

Pre-loaded apps (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076144)

So we complain when MS bundles in a bunch of apps that it's monopolistic. Now are we going to complain that it sucks when they don't?

Re:Pre-loaded apps (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076176)

No, we're complaining that it sucks when the OEM doesn't. We don't have a problem with OEMs bundling apps with their hardware (something that major OEMS like Apple, Dell and HP do all the time), we just have a problem with OS vendors who are convicted monopolies with 90+% of the market bundling a bunch of crap in an attempt to put their competitors out of business.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076214)

But when Apple and Linux distros do it, it's okay? And it was okay for MS to do it BEFORE they lost their monopoly court case? Okay, now I'm clear.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076294)

Actually, it was ok before they abused their monopoly. That they got convicted because of it has no bearing on the morality (look, mom, I'm a leftie!) of their actions.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (-1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076392)

And that they HAVEN'T got convicted has no bearing on the immorality of Apple and Canonical doing the exact same thing.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (3, Insightful)

jamincollins (599712) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076602)

Minor difference here, but MS was bundling applications that they made and abusing their monopoly position in one market for an advantage in another. Perhaps the same could be said for Apple as it is bundling its own iTunes software along with a variety of other applications. However, I don't see it as the same situation with Canonical as they didn't write most of the software they are bundling. They may have added to the software but much of what they distribute is the creation of others.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (0, Flamebait)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076740)

The bottom line is that neither Canonical nor Apple are in positions to leverage their operating system market share into new markets. Apple might be looking at a lawsuit soon enough if they keep working the iTunes angle. We'll see. Canonical isn't in any danger of being sued for anything but LACK OF market share (calm down before you flame .... I even have an Ubuntu blog).

Re:Pre-loaded apps (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076314)

But when Apple and Linux distros do it, it's okay? And it was okay for MS to do it BEFORE they lost their monopoly court case? Okay, now I'm clear.
Well, I assume you're trolling, but I'll answer you anyway (feel free to mod me down) -- Linux vendors and Apple are not bundling apps in order to put competitors out of business.

Microsoft bundled DoubleSpace/DriveSpace to put Stac out of business, they bundled EMM386 to put Quarterdeck out of business, they bundled Internet Explorer to put Netscape out of business, and they bundled Media Player to get Apple to stop making QuickTime for Windows (I believe the testimony given in court was they told Apple to "knife the baby" in regards to QuickTime for Windows).

You might like Microsoft's products, that's fine, but if you agree with their business practices then you're no better than they are.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076356)

Yes, because Apple is *SO* open to competition with its bundled iTunes software. Nope, they're not interesting in maintaining it as a monopoly at all. That's why iPod works *SO* well with other online music stores.

Oh wait...

Re:Pre-loaded apps (2, Insightful)

jotok (728554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076496)

Oh, the iPod works wonderfully with other online stores.
But iTunes is worthless for other music players.

ITunes itself is not the store. It's just a manager (and not a very good one).
If it were a commercial offering, then I would have an issue with it conflicting with other music managers or even WMP. But it's not, you can get free ones anywhere.

It seems like your objection is based on the fact that iPod has been successful. The weird thing to me is that iPod is inferior in many respects to other players in terms of UI and battery life--but people love the wheel thingy so they keep buying them.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (-1, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076528)

Oh, the iPod works wonderfully with other online stores.

Yeah? Name one other store that Apple has licensed Fairplay to. Name one model of iPod that will play DRM'ed files from any other music store besides iTunes. Sounds like the perfect monopoly to me.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076618)

Yeah, like eMusic, Amazon.com, Magnatune.

Works wonderfully. Get a grip, stupid.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076666)

They bundled DoubleSpace/DriveSpace because it was a useful thing that they felt many of their users would benefit from. Same goes for EMM386, IE, MP, and all the other stuff. They've added a lot of features to their OS, without charging much more for it. Do you really want to pay to have support for extended memory? Or for browsing web pages? or for playing video files? Because until MS came along and started including it in the base cost of the OS, a lot of this stuff did cost extra.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (1)

jotok (728554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076448)

You don't get it.

If you buy A DELL COMPUTER and it comes bundled with stuff, that's ok. Those vendors all compete for Dell's attention and to get the contract for the bundle; this is called "capitalism."

If you buy WINDOWS and it comes bundled with stuff--even if it's just that Microsoft demanded it as part of its agreement with the hardware vendor, that's not good. That's the opposite of capitalism.

Capisce?

Re:Pre-loaded apps (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076696)

So Windows should only be allowed to come with the kernal?

Re:Pre-loaded apps (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076190)

Microsoft bundled apps that they produced. Xandros (who supplies Linux for the Eee) does not produce OpenOffice.org or any other application that comes with the Eee. Furthermore, Asus would be doing the bundling, not Microsoft.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076192)

It's not Microsoft that would have to include them, it's ASUS. But for cost reasons, it would probably have to be windows versions of the same open-source software that's on the linux version. (Do they use OpenOffice? It's not very lightweight!)

Re:Pre-loaded apps (5, Informative)

ccozan (754085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076218)

Firefox and Openoffice.org have _earned_ their place on a desktop. IE or Mediaplayer didn't: MS used his OS monopoly to push them in the desktop. The same with Apple: they have a _almost_ monopoly for music players, but using this to push Quicktime ( = crap ) on everybody's desktop should not be allowed.

Re:Pre-loaded apps (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076306)

And they're doing it with Safari too. The other day, when I downloaded an update to iTunes (7.6.2??) it tried to sneak Safari in there. If I would have just kept on clicking next, it would have downloaded and installed Safari. Luckily I noticed, and unchecked the option for Safari. Apple is getting just as bad as MS.

Wrong! Dumbass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076332)

So we complain when MS bundles in a bunch of apps that it's monopolistic.

Bundling apps does not make you a monopoly. Bundling an app to hurt a competitor & expand into their space when you're already a monopoly is anti-competitive.

Now are we going to complain that it sucks when they don't?

Yup, if they hadn't been such a bunch of predatory assholes, they'd be able to bundle apps & they wouldn't produce such a shit operating environment

Re:Wrong! Dumbass. (-1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076406)

Bundling an app to hurt a competitor & expand into their space when you're already a monopoly is anti-competitive. You mean like Apple and does with iTunes?

BWAHAHAHAHA! (4, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076146)

Man, M$ is running scared on this one...I never though I'd see they day they'd go to intentionally design an OS that works better on a less powerful computer.

Now, will this OS be generally available? It would be nice to be able to breathe some extra life into some of the slower systems I have here at work.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076178)

I like the idea of an "XP Lite" too. But I bet Dell and the other hardware manufacturers (who want to sell you the latest, greatest computer) will raise Hell at the idea of releasing a new OS for old computers. They'll probably raise Hell as it is (since MS has been pushing THEM to get rid of even the full version of XP).

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076342)

I like the idea of an "XP Lite" too. But I bet Dell and the other hardware manufacturers (who want to sell you the latest, greatest computer) will raise Hell at the idea of releasing a new OS for old computers. They'll probably raise Hell as it is (since MS has been pushing THEM to get rid of even the full version of XP).

Well, the high-end vendors might be pissed at this, that's true.

But, Microsoft can't ignore the prospect of small, cheap, low-end laptops becoming widespread which are being shipped with Linux by default. An entire market segment devoted to less-powerful machines (which, actually sounds quite cool) probably worries them if they can't play and get people to use their stuff.

They simply can't find themselves being a company which can't provide an OS for the emerging market in less-powerful machines. Of course, the funny thing is, Microsoft has never been optimized for small resource footprints -- they've always required more resources than you have available.

I'll be curious to see how well they do this. Quite frankly, Linux and FreeBSD have always rocked on less-powerful hardware, because they can fit into a smaller space more readily. Retroactively making XP less of a resource pig isn't going to be easy I bet.

Cheers

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076726)

It's easy enough that there are 3rd party tools [litepc.com] to do it. I can't see how microsoft would have a problem with it.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076196)

Man, M$ is running scared on this one...I never though I'd see they day they'd go to intentionally design an OS that works better on a less powerful computer.
MS-DOS. That is all, kthxbye.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076464)

intentionally design

QDOS -> 86-DOS -> MS-DOS

Sorry, you fail it - MS didn't design DOS :P

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (0, Troll)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076764)

Bring back Win98!! That'll work. Yeah ....

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (4, Funny)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076206)

Yes, it will.

Oh, you meant in stores.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076248)

Microsoft designs software for newer computers, not necessarily more powerful ones. In general, new desktops are more powerful than old desktops, but when the market moves in the less powerful but more portable direction, Microsoft will follow suit. And no, this will not be generally available.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076416)

Not really. They've been designing OSes for less powerful computers for years but in years past they were only really intended for private parties or software assurance customers, not for the general public.

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (3, Informative)

blackdevl (34312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076586)

To further comment on this, the OS the parent is referring to is Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PC's which is based off Windows XP Embedded, to be a replacement for the 9x/2000 machines that volume license customers with SA contracts may be using. It runs on less memory and processor and is up to date on patching (as up to date as XP can be). While this wasnt intended to be a full featured os (I believe its more for remote desktop and holding over old hardware until companies can upgrade), I have used it in vmware and have not had any major issues with it. http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sa/benefits/fundamentals.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (2, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076462)

intentionally design an OS that works better on a less powerful computer
They'd already tried intentionally designing one that works worse on a more powerful computer.

That hasn't worked out too good though.

Why XP (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076156)

The Eee PC is not really being sold as a desktop replacement but more as a portable supplemental computer, and CE already has a GUI that works with smaller screens. So what does XP do that CE doesn't, thta's needed here?

Re:Why XP (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076234)

You mean other than not compete with Linux?

Really.. that's the reason. CE is Windows 3.11 with a boob job. You can't pitch that as a Linux competitor and not be laughed out of the room.

Re:Why XP (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076238)

It runs native XP apps without having to get a special version.
You have a whole back catalog running on a cheap UMPC platform.

Why not Vista? Or Windows 7? (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076254)

And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.

And then, with Windows 7 theoretically coming soon, they, theoretically, could use this hardware as a testbed for showing off just how *amazing* the performance of 7 is compared to everything else.

Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic when it comes to positioning CE in any market...it's theoretically their "embedded OS" but out SAN uses "XP Embedded" as its controlling software, and apparently CE is relegated to basic phone use, down from the PDAs and smaller pseudo-PCs of the late 90s, early '00s (much like the Eee machine, come to think of it...)

Re:Why not Vista? Or Windows 7? (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076324)

LOL, I just got a picture in my head of some poor bastard being put in charge of stripping down Vista to run on a computer that can't even handle the full version of XP. The poor bastard would be suicidal in a week.

Re:Why not Vista? Or Windows 7? (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076444)

And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.
Because they Realized they can't, the fact that Vista IS a bloated hog coming back to bite them in the ass.

Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic when it comes to positioning CE in any market...it's theoretically their "embedded OS" but out SAN uses "XP Embedded" as its controlling software, and apparently CE is relegated to basic phone use, down from the PDAs and smaller pseudo-PCs of the late 90s, early '00s (much like the Eee machine, come to think of it...)
Those smaller psuedo-PCs, like the NEC Mobile Pro line, which were very similar to the Eee sucked because they were: A. Expensive, usually $800+, and B. Could not run standard full desktop apps. The Eee can, which is part of the reason for its success. It can do everything a Thinkpad X61 can do, just more slowly, but at about 1/3 the price, and almost 1/2 the size and weight. The "1/3 the price" is important, because it has made people much more likely to actually buy the machine.

It runs standard Windows software (1)

localroger (258128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076280)

XP has the whole backward-compatibility thing going which is both their big strength and the albatross around their neck. In particular, I expect the big draw is running your standard non-hobbled version of MS Office so you can read the files sent to you by other people running it that nothing else can read. And unlike Linux, CE has no mechanism for even trying to run standard Windows apps under emulation.

Re:Why XP (1)

Idaho (12907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076394)

what does XP do that CE doesn't, thta's needed here?


Apart from not crashing randomly all the time and actually doing a halfway decent job at multitasking and memory managament, you mean?

I can't help wondering, since you had to ask this apparently, whether you have ever used a Windows CE-based device?

Re:Why XP (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076424)

I can't help wondering, since you had to ask this apparently, whether you have ever used a Windows CE-based device?

No. So thanks for the warning:)

One rebut (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076472)

CE sucks on what is for it 'larger screens'

ce on VGA is poor...

CE on larger than VGA resolutions is very painful
lots of apps & displays & views don't work right.

Re:Why XP - Are you kidding? (4, Interesting)

miknix (1047580) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076518)

Are you kidding?

I own a Windows CE handheld (HTC Wizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Wizard [wikipedia.org] ) full of hardware capabilities and the pre-installed Windows Mobile 5 renders it almost unusable.

Luckily I could join a development team that were porting Linux to it.

Re:Why XP (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076556)

Forget CE. What about windows flp? c'mon, this is the first mention of flp here... Wikipedia link! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why XP (1)

ceroklis (1083863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076590)

WinCE only supports a subset of the win32 api. Most (think 99%) of the 95/98/2000/XP applications won't run without modifications. However there are ports of office (very simplified) and IE for WinCE, so it would be possible for MS to create a reasonable laptop system out of CE without too much effort. But I guess customers would simply never accept something that looks so similar to a WinXP laptop yet cannot run the same apps. They accept the non-compatibility on a phone, not on a laptop.

System design as a whole (5, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076160)

Isn't the problem with XP software that most programs now expect to use more than 800*600?
ie: this is not just a problem for Microsoft, but for all app developers.
I know in our shop we stopped really worrying about 8x6 a long time ago since most customers prefer detail over big fonts(low dpi) and scrolling - if we design most windows for use at 8x6 it looks awfully cramped on anything larger.

(having said that I am undergoing a retraining of sorts as I adapt to my n810)

Re:System design as a whole (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076246)

Most software on all operating systems expects that you will have higher than 800x600. Just try running Linux in VMWare using 800x600 resoultion. Many apps go off the screen, and there's no way to even reach the stuff on the right and bottom sides of the window. Even shrinking the window doens't help, because it doesn't allow you to scroll around. This is common on a lot of options screens, that have to be so large, because they present 40,000 different options to the user in a single form.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076498)

If you are talking about X applications, try holding you alt key while clicking and dragging on some area of the window that does not have a widget on it. You should be able to move it.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076800)

true, but a good workaround doesn't substitute a good design

Re:System design as a whole (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076264)

A lot of websites look like crap on 800X600 too. Many designers have stopped targeting that resolution.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076412)

Which is pretty stupid, since it means that they are effectively excluding mobile users. I tend to test sites on my 770, which has a 800x480 screen (not all of which is available when the dock is visible). If the important information isn't visible without scrolling then the design fails. With devices like the iPhone becoming more common, designing a site that doesn't work on a device with a 3" screen is just stupid.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076488)

Anyone using a 3" screen and not expecting to scroll when surfing is pretty stupid too. I personally still consider 800x600 into my designs (though I target a higher resolution), but I can understand why designers are leaving it behind. A 800x600 site viewed at the much higher resolutions that most people use today looks like shit.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076530)

It depends on the site. The designer should look at who the intended audience is before just making a blanket statement that it's just stupid to not design a site for a 3" screen. I've worked on sites that a mobile/handheld user was likely to access the site and the design should take that into consideration. I've also worked on sites where the intended audience would never view the site on a handheld. Designing it so that it looked just as good on a 3" screen as it did on a 21" would have just been a waste of time and effort.

Re:System design as a whole (1)

martin_henry (1032656) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076650)

Many designers have stopped targeting that resolution.

Where I come from, we usually express 99.9999% as "all" or "pretty much all"...

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076216)

Am I just being cynical in thinking that Asus are only offering XP because Microsoft are threatening them in some way? Why on earth would they take a heavily customised thing like the Eee and then replace a key component, the OS, with something that is so clearly inadequate for the purpose and then market it on an equal footing? Why cannot they just turn round to Microsoft and tell them that putting XP on it is pointless?

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076252)

because people know Windows... duh

Almost anything by Microsoft is lightweight (1, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076250)

Almost anything by Microsoft is lightweight. ;)

Re:Almost anything by Microsoft is lightweight (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076390)

Sure. I mean, what's a Windows XP CD weigh anyways? About an ounce?

Despite what Microsoft may say... (4, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076258)

...I am going to interpret this as a victory for the common user, the ones who are saying no to Vista and yes to keeping XP or switching to Linux, that Microsoft is admitting without saying the actual words that they no longer dictate to the market place what we will use, that we refuse to keep buying every larger and faster PCs when do not necessarily NEED a bigger and faster PCs.

I Suppose..... (2, Funny)

segedunum (883035) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076260)

...a Vista Lite is out of the question then?

the significant factor here (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076270)

Microsoft has been desperately trying to obsolete XP. They want it over and done with, gone, Vista is the new OS. But now this is introducing XP as the OS in a whole new class of machines, meaning Microsoft will have to continue to support it.

Now as I understand it, the way Linux is designed, everything is incremental improvements. The kernel is the only linuxy part shared across all linux distros and everything else bundled in is at the discretion of the distro owners. So even if some parts of the distro get a rebuild, there's more incrimentalism here than "chuck the baby with the bathwater" rebuilds leading to Vista-style clusterfucks. Is my understanding correct here?

Logically, Microsoft should have stuck with the incrimentalism. If they wanted a full rebuild of the OS, they should have done so, made sure it ran fast on the hardware out at the time of release, and included a VM-bundled copy of XP to provide backwards compatibility, the way OSX comes with a copy of OS9.

What I'm seeing here is Microsoft is forced to keep XP around longer which means there's less and less reason for people to think about moving to Vista. With all of the web 2.0 apps and things like terminal services, the laptop becomes a powerful dumb terminal. I've seen laptops that crawl running normal apps run like greased lighting once an rdp session is open, they can handle the client just fine. So the Vista upgrade strategy, already suffering from massive consumer blowback, is struck another blow. XP remains viable and on the market and Vista remains the "Now why the hell would I want to do that to myself?" OS. XP will continue to sell as machines wear out but there will not be the huge windfall of the entire install base making a migration to a brand new OS over the next several years. Seems like a proper marketing disaster here. Interesting.

Re:the significant factor here (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076478)

Your understanding of Linux is correct. Build everything in little parts, and make every little part do it's own thing well. Even the kernel is modular. If you don't have multiple processors, don't build in support for it, and your kernel image will end up smaller. Same with a lot of other features. Sometimes, certain parts of Linux are revamped. Take for instance KDE4. It was basically a complete rewrite of KDE. But they did it the right way. They made sure it was efficient from the beginning, and it many ways, it actually runs quicker than KDE3.

Re:the significant factor here (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076494)

Microsoft has been desperately trying to obsolete XP. They want it over and done with, gone, Vista is the new OS. But now this is introducing XP as the OS in a whole new class of machines, meaning Microsoft will have to continue to support it.

Of course, the problem for MS is, they couldn't run on smaller hardware when that was new hardware. Microsoft has always built their stuff to require a fair amount of resources with the expectation everyone should be upgrading soon.

I think it's going to be awfully difficult to retroactively make that stuff run on small platforms now. The big question is, can Microsoft provide a useful user experience on older, slower hardware? A stripped down XP which can't run any application MS wrote isn't going to get people using it.

Cheers

Re:the significant factor here (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076580)

incrimentalism?

incrimentalism?

Freudian slip, or intentional humour?

Either way, I salute you :o)

Re:the significant factor here (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076584)

Logically, Microsoft should have stuck with the incrimentalism. If they wanted a full rebuild of the OS, they should have done so, made sure it ran fast on the hardware out at the time of release, and included a VM-bundled copy of XP to provide backwards compatibility, the way OSX comes with a copy of OS9.
Not quite. You would want to make the OS fast on the PCs that are out 1-2 years before release, because that's the only way you'll get anyone to upgrade their current rigs. Else, it'll only sell with new PCs, which you would be getting anyway, rather than consciously upgrading, making another sale that you wouldn't have.
And, if the OS runs fast on old hardware, it'd fly on the modern machines.

nLite anyone? (2, Interesting)

silanea (1241518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076288)

"Lightweight XP" - Hell, that's what I've been using across my rigs for years, thank God for nLite. XP has grown to be a pretty stable OS by now, and if you get rid of all the crap Microsoft stuffed into the system it's actually lightweight enough to be run on low-spec hardware just fine.

Re:nLite anyone? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076522)

Microsoft released its own nLite - its called Windows For Legacy PCs. It is an official XP lite, but only available to corporate customers.

Already Out? (2, Interesting)

b00tleg (603482) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076322)

Isn't that what Windows CE is suppose to be for?

Re:Already Out? (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076434)

No, it's what Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs is supposed to be for.

quite nice though (5, Informative)

atamagabakkaomae (1241604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076346)

I just bought the Eee with Windows a few days ago here in Tokyo. Actually I havent really closely followed the story, but I think I already saw it here in the stores with Windows XP at least 1.5 month ago.

Anyway, just to comment on the usability: With the preconfigured Windows setup the small screen is really not used to the optimum. But if you tweak a little bit (like hiding the startbar, setting the Desktop environment to maximum performance etc.) things turn out to be quite ok. I also installed the 'hacked' scaling video driver, which works nicely and allows me to run my VJing application at 1024x768. So far without crash.

I would have preferred to buy the Linux version of this machine, but couldn't get it here at Big Camera. So the Windows version was more of a second choice. No proper command line but, anyway, I dont regret it.

Oh, and Microsoft/Asus does deliver some bundled stuff with the machine. Some LiveBlabla (office suite or something). I uninstalled it without looking at it though (for openoffice).

To conclude I dont think the normal Windows XP is such an unpleasant experience on the Eee. Of course a version with a smaller harddisk footprint might be nice.

Second choice? (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076520)

I would have preferred to buy the Linux version of this machine, but couldn't get it here at Big Camera. So the Windows version was more of a second choice. No proper command line but, anyway, I dont regret it.
Why not just install Linux on it? Puppeee and/or eeeXubuntu both work great. And with SquashFS/UnionFS you end up with plenty of disk space.

Microsoft alrady created this version... (1)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076378)

Just install Windows 2000 on it. I love the Easy button.

Lightweight XP (4, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076382)

A lightweight version of Windows XP sounds like a wonderful idea. Perhaps they could then port it to desktop computers so they will be really fast!
(reality sinks in)
Wait, standard XP was lightweight when it first came out. It was also horribly insecure, that's why the service packs came out. The service packs made XP slower and of course your going to need an antivirus...

Never mind, it's a horrible idea. They might as well start from scratch on a whole new OS.

Re:Lightweight XP (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076560)

standard XP was lightweight when it first came out
No it wasn't. People complained about how slow XP was versus 98SE, because it was. You could use XP Gold + antivirus on 128MB of RAM, but it wasn't especially pleasant.

Lighter than it is now, I could see, but not lightweight for back then.

...first? (3, Insightful)

SilentBob0727 (974090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076398)

In what could be a first Microsoft is working to create a special build of Windows
What the hell was Windows CE?
What's running on the XBox?
Is OP being facetious or an idiot?

Theming XP (and Linux) for 800x480 (0)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076420)

Whilst using the Win2000 theme does save space, it looks dog ugly. However there are loads of theme hacks for XP, so there must be a clean, neat one that minimises used space, maybe using a vertically smaller font in addition to compacting UI elements by removing the odd pixel of padding and margin?

Also, the same goes for GTK for the Linux variants on the Eee.

Also a full screen editor, like WriteRoom for the Mac, would be a neat application on the Eee. Is there something like that available (yeah, I guess I could maximise a terminal window).

Also all applications should have a borderless full-screen mode, otherwise the title bar is using valuable vertical screen estate.

Re:Theming XP (and Linux) for 800x480 (1)

Gori (526248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076474)

You can try PyRoom, a clone of WriteRoom. Written in, you guessed it, Python. It is GPL too, unlike WriteRoom.

Here is the link : http://pyroom.org/ [pyroom.org]
But you really want to get it from launchpad : https://launchpad.net/pyroom [launchpad.net]

Better yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076450)

Instead of having to deal with microsoft's inability to make a decent working system on your platform, why not go back to working on your custom linux installation that makes full use of the hardware? Maybe, just maybe that would make things easier, and leave the XP install to the user!

I have this feeling that Microsoft may sound the death knell for the eeepc in the near future while other UMPC's blow it out of the water. Probably intentional too. I wouldnt be shocked if they stall the release of the release of the next versions of the eeepc (desktop and the 9" laptop) because they take forever to build a custom XP install.

On the other hand, Asus, may unintentionally make Microsoft look really bad when linux has no problem running on their system, complete and all, already a mainstream product and microsoft cant even supply an OS that can run on it properly, lacking all the cool features and apps that the linux install has.

One more note, Microsoft isnt monopolistic if they include apps, as long as they arent their own applications, or are supplied by the OEM. What got them in trouble was bundling their own web browser in an attempt to control web standards and curb an emerging market in their favor.

The Pirate Bay to the rescue! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076476)

Microsoft doesn't have to work that hard! There are plenty of stripped-down versions of WindowsXP available through "The Pirate Bay" today. I'm sure quite a few versions there will be more than acceptable on the EeePC.

But, if they don't use what's there, what they make will end up there... so either way...

XP on the Eee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076500)

XP can be slimmed down to run very well on the Eee...I dual boot XP and Xubuntu on mine. XP can run my work software and hibernate. Xubuntu is what I use for fun.

This (Windows FLP) already exists! (3, Funny)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076504)

Microsoft already has a stripped down version of XP shipping to corporate customers.

They'll change the login screens, and BOOM! Its XPeee. (or eeeXP, whatever)

Re:This (Windows FLP) already exists! (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076712)

I've tried it on my Eee. Not really all that much smaller, and not as functional either (DUN seems to not work, which means no CrackBerry tethering).

what I want to know is... (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076552)

what I want to know is... how does this effect the price?

I mean presumably there is a windows cost added on, and with Linux/Win being sold side by side this might finally get the consumers to see something that only us geeks have been that knowledgeable about: ie, the windows tax.

I've had mine since they came out, and I will not be dirtying it with windows...

not necessary, runs fine with XP pro (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076594)

I wiped the linux install and installed XP the day I got mine per the instructions you can find on the web. Did the install from a USB flash drive. Worked great and the system runs just fine with XP Pro. Not sure why they want a special build of XP...

nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076676)

Nice. That's a real kick in the nuts for Microsoft and all the Microsoft fanboys. "I like your os and all, but can you make it run as well as Linux?".

Good luck with that. Just the virus protection requirement alone will blow this one apart.

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (1)

westcoast philly (991705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076684)

It's already been done. look it up. I've actually found it runs even better than ubuntu on certain rigs. I've been playing with a few different linux distros to learn what all the fuss is about, and what I've come up with is that if a machine has integrated video, ubuntu runs like a dog, whereas Windows Fundamentals will glide rather effortlessly. It's XP SP2 built up from the kernel specifically for old hardware, unlike the 'lite' versions you'll find all over that were fullblown, then stripped out. It'll run happily on a pentium 133. Was designed as a stepping stone for small businesses that wanted to move to XP from, say, 98 but couldn't afford to upgrade hardware as well. Granted, there are some utilities it does not include, but generally if it runs under XP, it'll run in Fundamentals (hardware reqirements aside). I have an old IBM laptop (p3-450) that I'm turning into a wifi digital pictureframe. Everything integrated, of course. I tried Ubuntu and Kubuntu, both ran like crap, and of course, couldn't enable any advanced graphic options, whereas a similarly specced desktop with an old geforce2 MX I have here just FLIES with all the options turned on. I like XP as far as windows OSs go.. I'm comfortable with it, and will be dissapointed when it's finally replaced by Vista, but I've now recycled a few old systems with Fundamentals, and from what I've seen of it, it's very well done.

Wow, a featherweight, one-ton operating system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23076714)

what a concept!

Once more proving that you don't have to be big to be slow ... but it helps; doesn't it M$?

re:Crackberries, etc. (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076806)

They'll change the login screens, and BOOM! Its XPeee. (or eeeXP, whatever)

okay... and they'll add in a few other optional functions. My EEE works better with FLP than it does with XP, and since I don't have a blackberry, I wouldn't know about tethering (or care).

Eee PC a runaway success? (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076810)

Shipping 100,000 units a month is a runaway success? That's what a specialty gaming platform or portable workstation would ship. Most of the big players (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Toshiba) expect a given product (such as a 15.4" consumer notebook model) to ship 1 million a month or more. The bigger players move literally tens of millions of laptops a month, each.

The Eee PC is a mild success for an extremely nich product; as a runaway success? Not even close...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?