×

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!

Acer Launching Dual Android/Windows 7 Netbook

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-make-them-fight dept.

Operating Systems 105

Barence writes "Acer has unveiled an Aspire netbook that dual boots Google Android and Windows 7. 'User demand is not there for [other forms of] Linux [but] we never give up. We adjust,' said Jim Wong, Acer senior corporate vice president. 'We introduce Android with the Windows OS, and why Android? Because it has the best connectivity built into the OS.' Acer has also talked up Google's forthcoming Chrome OS. 'Chrome can be a viable alternative to Microsoft's OSes for web applications on different mobile devices,' he explained."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

105 comments

From the article (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745183)

"The Android browser offers most of the things people need. But I think today IE is still dominating the online world, a lot of websites are still optimised for IE"

This is probably just some intranet sites inside companies or schools. Chrome and other browsers should be just fine for all web browsing (though yeah, sometimes I do need to switch to IE for some site to work - but it's not often)

Interesting thing is that Android is also available for PC's. Can it be downloaded from somewhere?

Re:From the article (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29745315)

I've only seen it as a LiveCD, which you can get here. Havn't played myself, so not sure if you can install or not, but worth a look.

http://code.google.com/p/live-android/ [google.com]

Re:From the article (3, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745399)

That line shouldn't be "a lot of websites are still optimised for IE"...

It should be "a lot of websites are still spending hours upon hours trying to function correctly with IE"

Re:From the article (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745471)

Either that or 1) they're old and haven't been updated in ages, 2) use ugly table layouts that work okay in IE6 or 3) use properitary tags that only work in IE (also known as "old ASP/ASP.Net code" or "Frontpage Code", which were ugly as hell).

Re:From the article (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747117)

I've used Opera exclusively for 7 years and was used to having to fire up IE every now and again. Long ago it was for certain parts of ebay and even longer ago, paypal.

But, in the past year to 18 mos I haven't had to use IE at all, ever. Maybe I don't get out much.

I did have to try IE about 4 mos ago on some site that didn't work with Opera but it didn't work with FF or IE either. Go figure.

Re:From the article (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29754703)

I've used Opera exclusively for 7 years and was used to having to fire up IE every now and again.

As a long time desktop Linux user I don't even have IE to run if other browsers don't work (I guess I could set it up in Wine or in a VM if I was really desperate) and it's been ages since I've seen a broken site as well.
I can only think of one off the top of my head which was set up by some clueless people some years ago and which the org running it is now apparently kind of stuck with since they don't seem to understand how it works (no techs there and no funds).

ASites "optimised for IE"... What is this ? 2002 ? That writer ought to get an Internet connection some day.

Re:From the article (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745725)

Is that really the case if the website was specifically designed for IE? Don't most of the problems occur when you've designed the site without regard to IE and then try to tweak it to make it compatible for IE?

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29746449)

no

Re:From the article (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746771)

Is that really the case if the website was specifically designed for IE? Don't most of the problems occur when you've designed the site without regard to IE and then try to tweak it to make it compatible for IE?

No, if there are problems, usually it's because someone designs only for IE, because that's all they know or consider important - adjusting their site till it looks ok on the version of Internet Explorer on their machine. Unfortunately what they've been doing with that process is working around bugs or broken behaviour in IE, and perhaps not noticing some bugs they have in their site, because IE silently ignores them and tries to do what it thinks they mean if the html/js is broken.

If you then try the site in a normal browser (i.e. something other than Internet Explorer), or even another version of IE, it will look terrible, and js will perhaps be broken if they didn't use a library, as accessors etc are different in IE from everyone else. Thus we end up with sites that only work in IE or even IE6.

Optimised is definitely the wrong word for this process.

You can create HTML quite easily which works in Opera, Webkit, Firefox, Chrome, and then adapt it for IE - that's typically the best way to do things as it isolates the workarounds for IE, typically in IE only stylesheets, and typically doesn't take too long if you're used to buggy IE behaviour.

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29745947)

I love making web sites compatible with IE 6.

But then again I charge a 50% premium if clients want IE 6 compatibility.

why not just bundle WINE/IE6 (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747531)

What a ridiculous rationalization. Anybody that really needs IE probably really needs Windows for some other reason as well. But why force Windows on people on the assumption that they need IE? Plenty of people don't - how about all those iPhone users?

And if they really think IE's the issue, they can bundle IE6 (or whatever the latest version is that's known to work) with WINE. Does WINE work on Android?. If not, then why not Ubuntu?

Seriously, are we about to see a new version of 'pay for windows whether you want it or not' that offers a dual-boot Linux option of some kind, but still no linux-only option where you get to save money and not help fatten Microsoft?

Linux (4, Interesting)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745257)

Wouldn't be better to offer fast booting Linux (Moblin?) and dual boot with Win? Then users can access nice and quick Linux environment or wait for Win if they "really" need Office.

Android is good for phones, but that's how far it goes...

Re:Linux (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745445)

Yes, it possibly would but Intel is still working on Moblin, its not ready for prime-time.

See this Ars article [arstechnica.com] about the Ubuntu-remix version of Moblin (on the Dell mini v10)

But its getting there, and I hope to see more Moblin, and Maemo, devices when they're ready.

For fast-booting, they might as well put Splashtop in the bios instead, works wonderfully on my Asus desktop mobo.

Re:Linux (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745483)

If you're going to propose that Moblin is somehow better than Android for non-phone devices, it would be nice to have some backup information to prove your point.

The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS, and the efforts that Moblin and Linux are making are significant but not wholly complete. When, as you say, the OS boots faster, is transparent, and exists invisibly to users (though clearly to developers), then we will have a true "mobile Linux" distribution.

Acer seems to be tempting fate here and begging Microsoft to raise their licensing costs. If they pass their costs onto consumers, will their cheap hardware keep prices low enough to attract customers, even with the higher-priced desktop OS? I don't know, but it seems very dangerous for them to be making such claims at this point.

Re:Linux (1)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746479)

The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS [..]

Arguable, but irrelevant, a netbook is not an embedded platform.

Re:Linux (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747189)

I don't think it's even arguable. Linux has been used in embedded devices for nearly a decade now...perhaps longer. X-Window, now. Perhaps *that* isn't designed for embedded devices. (Don't know. Never encountered one doesn't mean it's not a design consideration.)

Re:Linux (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747177)

The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS [..]

Why exactly is Linux running on my TV, on cell phones, on coffee machines, ATMs, kiosks, web servers smaller than my coffee mug, etc?

Oh wait, Linux has been a fantastic OS for embedded systems from day 1 because of how modular the kernel is.

Are you suggesting the Linux desktop isn't great on embedded devices? In that case, no desktop is perfect for embedded devices. However, every major desktop to market now has taken touchscreens in consideration for their UI. KDE 4 runs great on the Nokia n900.

Android was designed EXCLUSIVELY for small, embedded devices and works great.

I'm sorry, what exactly was your point again?

Re:Linux (1)

jomcty (806483) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748929)

The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS...

Quite! My linux infused router (Asus WL-520gU running Tomato F/W) saw that packet and refuses to route any more traffic from you. I hope my Bubba server and TiVo doesn't catch wind of your comment.

Re:Linux (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746661)

Wouldn't be better to offer fast booting Linux (Moblin?) and dual boot with Win? Then users can access nice and quick Linux environment or wait for Win if they "really" need Office.

Android is good for phones, but that's how far it goes...

And from my perspective -- I don't care. Android to me hopefully means that the device comes with open specs, thus I can at any moment pick my own flavor. [gentoo.org] If it doesn't, well then it's just another netbook along the road. I don't use Linux for the name, there is a purpose behind my choice. I'm a brand turncoat and I always pick what I consider best for me, just like any non self-destructive consumer. In other words, flashing "Linux" infront of me isn't going to score you any points Acer, just like Netgear didn't score any points with their epic failure of an open router. If you do it right, I'll purchase your device. I've been waiting for a netbook worth purchasing to be honest. After so many recent disappointments from companies promising more than they delivered I'm still sceptical. Only time will tell.

Re:Linux (1, Interesting)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747155)

"Wouldn't be better to offer fast booting Linux (Moblin?) and dual boot with Win? Then users can access nice and quick Linux environment or wait for Win if they "really" need Office."

A client sent me an xls and doc file to my android phone.

They just worked.

I don't use spreadsheets and always refuse doc files replying with "I don't use proprietary formats, send me txt or html".

Apparently my Android phone is a part time xls/doc consumer appliance.

I was gobsmacked frankly.

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29747427)

What application opened these files?

From the article - wtf? (2, Insightful)

sensei moreh (868829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745275)

So why Windows? "A lot of the time people are using netbook for their productivity too," explained Wong, "and under Windows they have better productivity and also a better browsing experience with IE [Internet Explorer]."

Better productivity? I suppose that may be true if you're tied to Windows apps. But a better browsing experience with IE? All I can respond with is, "wtf?"

Re:From the article - wtf? (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746069)

But a better browsing experience with IE?All I can respond with is, "wtf?"

Indeed. My IE experience is much nicer in Linux than it is on Windows.

Re:From the article - wtf? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747201)

The only area in which I'm more productive on a Windows machine is with Photoshop because I haven't bothered to learn how to use The Gimp. In almost every other area, I am vastly more productive on a Linux box.

I love how so many people assume that Linux is just some cute, hobby OS that is designed as a diversion as opposed to anything that someone might actually use for serious computing.

Re:From the article - wtf? (1)

fatalGlory (1060870) | more than 4 years ago | (#29751393)

I see it this way:
A Linux machine is an industrial-strength computing device.
A Windows machine is more of a consumer-grade home appliance.

Wow really? (3, Interesting)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745307)

The key reason he used for keeping windows around was productivity and IE....

I mean there are plenty of reasons for keeping windows around such as gaming, users are used to it, etc.

But productivity and IE? I really don't know anyone who has used other brothers and still says that IE is a better browser, its basically that people just don't know about other browsers. As for productivity that is so far gone I can barely even respond to that...one word. "Openoffice" schools and businesses have been using it for years.

Re:Wow really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29745617)

...As for productivity that is so far gone I can barely even respond to that...one word. "Openoffice" schools and businesses have been using it for years.

I work with a LOT of different clients and co-workers with greatly varying degrees of IT competency. Openoffice is fine--it's all my wife & I use at home--but it's different than MSOffice, and so I wouldn't advocate it for the office world where it isn't already implemented. Look at how MS's ribbon bar was received.

Change is fine by me, but I don't want to have to deal with or listen to others' inabilities to cope.

Re:Wow really? (2, Informative)

rmcd (53236) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745779)

I have a thinkpad with ubuntu so I use Openoffice (3.1) a lot. My daughter is very happy with it for high school homework, but I honestly can't recommend it to anyone doing anything "serious".

I find that OO crashes a lot (thankfully file recovery works well), and simple actions like cut and paste (7000 lines of text, each 30 characters) lead to hangups where OO pegs the processor and nothing happens for minutes. By contrast, the same action is very fast in Excel. Good luck viewing a non-trivial powerpoint file. (Regarding my cut and past: Yes, after you kill and restart OO you can just save the file from the text editor and import it, but for some reason the word processor insists on opening it if the extension is ".txt". Arrggh!)

I want to like OO, I really do, but in my experience it's not for everyone.

Re:Wow really? (1, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747231)

I use OOo daily on Windows and openSUSE and have zero problems with it.

I wonder if part of the problem is poor packages in Ubuntu. That is certainly the case with Kubuntu. I don't really borther messing with plain Ubuntu given how much I loathe Gnome.

Re:Wow really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29747275)

I think that there are many people like yourself (myself included) that would love to use OO at work - but it always seems to come back and bite me. I would hate to in anyway 'dis' the talented people who work on OO, and it is quite an achievement, but to me it always seems like a typical Open Source product... nearly there but not quite, and imho, at best a slower 'copy' of a 3rd rate product. Though to GoogleDocs is considered to be in it's infancy it does at least have a USP over Windows.

Sadly, I believe the only thing that will change this would be completely open 'office' document formats and that will not happen while MS have any input into the equation. It sometimes seems to me that the OO community actually see the price advantage over office as a selling point. This may be true for some small business, but I doubt it comes into the equation for most who just want things to work. At least with Windows if something doesn't work, it is likely affecting your competitors also... a sad state of affairs, but true.

Re:Wow really? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29756071)

I find that OO crashes a lot

I have never seen it crashing on Linux, and apparently no one else seen it, either. Maybe you are lying.

Re:Wow really? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746165)

It's not that people couldn't. Hell, quite many seem to figure out a Mac alright even though it's not Windows. even less so than most Linux distros. Where they get you is that it's not about picking one application over the other, it's whether you want to learn one application or two. You say OpenOffice is used in business, I say I've yet to see it at any of my customers as a consultant. You and me, we have no problems using two applications that are almost the same. Most people get confused, they go "wasn't there a button to do that?" and start looking for whatever was in the other application. I've been called an excel wiz simply because I knew how to use $ signs to fix cell locations and drag the formula out to all cells on the line. Just getting some decent formatting on a letter is complicated for some people, I don't know how but I imagine it's the same guys making web pages full of 1x1 gifs.

Re:Wow really? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746235)

You're more productive with tools you're familiar with and used to working with.

Re:Wow really? (2, Interesting)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746605)

You're more productive with tools you're familiar with and used to working with.

I will second this. It is a (potentially disturbing) fact that a huge slice of the workforce is using Outlook, Excel, M$Word, Sharepoint, Exchange, IE, etc, to be productive. They are accustomed to using the products, and spend 5 days a week immersed in that world. I lose sight of this fact during much of each workday (on linux 98% of the time), that is until another email comes in from marketing, or purchasing, and it's got another Excel spreadsheet and a Word document attached. A sobering truth, but a truth nonetheless. The moment I step one inch out of my pleasant Linux bubble, it's an ocean of M$

Why modded troll? (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749749)

Not sure why someone thinks I am trolling here. It's really not a provocative type of paragraph. It accurately describes my current work environment.

Ya, Really. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29748269)

The key reason you give for keeping linux around is productivity .. ?!

I mean there are plenty of reasons for keeping linux around such as .. um.. yeah something.

Listen neckbeard.. nobody in their right mind would even consider using or recommending linux for the average person. As long as the linux camp has "brilliant" market analysts such as yourself, you tards are doomed to remain in the sub 1% market segment. Windows is whats best for the average person. The sooner you realize that, the quicker you'll be entering reality. Leave the delusions of linux on the desktop to other neckbeards.

Re:Wow really? (1)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748919)

Productivity isn't just office. None of the major "productivity" apps I use have equivalents in linux.

Re:Wow really? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29756119)

Productivity isn't just office. None of the major "productivity" apps I use have equivalents in linux.

Name three.

(hint: first is Office, there are no others, you fail).

Re:Wow really? (1)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29762145)

Cubase SX. I'm not even going to name others as you contemplate how ignorant you are. Pretty much ANYTHING music related, and no, Ardour is like MS paint compared to photoshop.

Re:Wow really? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29763171)

"Productivity application" means a general-purpose application commonly used in an office environment. Cubase is a specialized application (and so is AutoCAD).

Re:Wow really? (1)

kbrannen (581293) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749029)

... As for productivity that is so far gone I can barely even respond to that...one word. "Openoffice" schools and businesses have been using it for years.

I'm seriously contemplating getting a netbook. I really want to get Linux on it as I'm far more comfortable with Linux than Windows. But, I'll probably get the netbook with Windows because of 1 app: OneNote (which I use extensively at work). There is no OSS equivalent; Basket Note Pads tries and may make it in a couple of years, perhaps about the time my first netbook wears out (if I'm lucky) and then I can move to that app instead.

My point is that "killer apps" can prevent movement, and the "killer app" is different for different people. I should also point out that I believe OneNote to be the only good program that MS makes.

Re:Wow really? (2, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749095)

Gaming is the only good reason to keep Windows around IMO, and any average home/office laptop is going to make a tolerable-at-best gaming PC...and that's for 6 months until the middle-of-the-road, non-upgradeable video card is utterly obsolete, not to mention the painfully slow hard drive that all but the best laptops typically come with. "Users are used to it" isn't a great argument when Vista and 7 have interfaces that are as different from XP as any Linux distro.

Active Desktop for Linux (1, Flamebait)

lkcl (517947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745319)

i always thought that an active-desktop-esque [sourceforge.net] window manager for linux would be cool, as it would allow users to write applications in HTML, Flash, or anything, and have them in the "Start" Menu, or as part of the desktop.

it turns out ironically that google's "chrome os" is pretty much exactly that, and the Palm Pre is already well on its way to being a "web" os, too.

thus we ironically come full circle, as the startling implications of ideas that microsoft creates over fifteen years ago eventually filter through the security nightmares and negative public perceptions of the windows OS....

Re:Active Desktop for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29746555)

Check out the capabilities of Plasmoids in KDE 4... I have widgets doing basically everything Active Desktop was supposed to do except KDE 4 actually works. Also, Plasma is being extended to push KDE 4 technologies into UI designs that are not desktop-centric so you can have much of the same software that you have on your desktop with a GUI that actually plays well on a smartphone or netbook.

Re:Active Desktop for Linux (0, Flamebait)

lkcl (517947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748185)

ah, yes, i heard about plasma. the general consensus is that whilst the developers creating widgets are extremely competent, and having a lot of fun and doing fantastic creative work, the actual core of plasma is... strained.

plus, also, remember: KDE is based on QT. QT is nowhere near as powerful as DOM / browser technology, requiring code to be written in c++ to workaround its limitations. bottom line: Browser engines such as Trident, Webkit and XULrunner absolutely piss all over "desktop" widget sets for flexibility, reach and maturity.

You can't beat approx 45% market share of MSHTML/Trident, so... if you can't beat-em, join-em.

Re:Active Desktop for Linux (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749267)

ah, yes, i heard about plasma. the general consensus is that whilst the developers creating widgets are extremely competent, and having a lot of fun and doing fantastic creative work, the actual core of plasma is... strained.

As a developer I can tell you the opposite. The core is quite good, but good plasmoids are still missing.

plus, also, remember: KDE is based on QT. QT is nowhere near as powerful as DOM / browser technology, requiring code to be written in c++ to workaround its limitations. bottom line: Browser engines such as Trident, Webkit and XULrunner absolutely piss all over "desktop" widget sets for flexibility, reach and maturity

Are you being sarcastic are you retarded? Qt and KDE for that matter includes webbrowsing technology, so by any logic they can do anything possible using webtechologies and more. Try checking out current Qt documentation.

Chrome OS copied from ms Active Desktop (0, Troll)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748397)

"i always thought that an active-desktop-esque [sourceforge.net] window manager for linux would be cool, as it would allow users to write applications in HTML, Flash, or anything, and have them in the "Start" Menu, or as part of the desktop"

I thought Active Desktop was HTML shortcuts on your desktop that you could click on and browse using Internet Explorer, while Chrome is a minimalist Operating System designed for sped and security. Something with which for Windows/IExplorer seems to be permanently set on the horizon.

Re:Active Desktop for Linux (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29753249)

How is that ironic? Even in the weak American use of the word, that is not ironic. It is a coincidence, nothing more.

Do you really think you sound smarted using word that you have no idea about?

Other forms of Linux... (1, Flamebait)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745485)

Quote
'User demand is not there for [other forms of] Linux'

Totally incorrect.
Just you wait, many purchases will scrub both Androis & Windows 7 and install their favourite distro be it Debian, Fedora, SUSE, or the dreaded *buntu (only joking, xbuntu is pretty good)

And the bit about sites needing IE is these days pretty weak. I wonder if this is just a few words to keep their masters in Redmond happy?
I do pretty well all my web browsing using Firefox on a Mac or Firefox on an MSI Wind running Fedora 11.
In two years, I have not come upon a site (outside of Microsoft. Hmmm strange that...) that wont' work.

Sigh, probably just a few weasley words to satisfy Microsoft.
Still a nice idea to ship a device with both.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745559)

Just you wait, many purchases will scrub both Androis & Windows 7 and install their favourite distro

I doubt it. If you want a Linux only netbook you can get one, if you buy one with Windows on it you'd probably dual boot. I like having both available, and I'm sure I'm not the only one - and Acer has the sales numbers to inform their statement, whereas we're just random /.ers speculating.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (2, Informative)

dskoll (99328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745797)

If you want a Linux only netbook you can get one

Unfortunately, it's not easy to find Linux-only netbooks. I tried buying an Acer Aspire One online with Linux installed; couldn't find one anywhere. I ended up buying the "Starling Netbook" from system76. Even places I'd bought a Linux Aspire One from a few months ago no longer carry it.

Microsoft has been very successful in shutting down Linux netbook sales, unfortunately.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (2, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746373)

Unfortunately, it's not easy to find Linux-only netbooks.

HP Mini 5101 [hp.com] is one of the best netbooks around in general (IMO, obviously), and you have an option of getting it with SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop [liliputing.com] if you want (and yes, it'll be cheaper than if you order it with Windows).

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

joostje (126457) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747679)

(and yes, it'll be cheaper than if you order it with Windows).

When I (from the dutch site) look it up, its 369 EUR for the Linux version [hp.com] with a 1024x600 display, and 359 EUR for the windows version [hp.com] (with a 1366x768 display). So, at least on the dutch HP site the linux version is not cheaper.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748271)

On U.S. site, there's no prebuilt model with Linux, so you have to build a custom one [hp.com]. At that point, the Windows version would cost you $581, and "alternative OS" (which means either FreeDOS or SLED) is $530. That said, both are more expensive than prebuilt versions, unfortunately...

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29746007)

I doubt it. If you want a Linux only netbook you can get one, if you buy one with Windows on it you'd probably dual boot. I like having both available, and I'm sure I'm not the only one - and Acer has the sales numbers to inform their statement, whereas we're just random /.ers speculating.

Speculate? Were you born yesterday?

Linux has been around on desktops for years now, with companies such as RedHat, Novell/SuSE/Corel, IBM, Oracle/Sun, SAP, HP, and others involved with the implementation of the OS.

As for the recent surge in popularity on the Desktop, Ubuntu has made significant contributions to that effort.

Methinks the "demand/sales stats" were fabricated to suit a company's Marketing Agreements -er, Strategy...

With the current state of WINE, VirtualBox, QEMu, and Xen, the "real need" for *NIX users to Dual Boot (or even VM with) Windows should continuously diminish.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747363)

I, personally, and for the suite of applications that I consider of significance, don't fine Wine at all satisfactory. (I'll admit that MSWindXP wouldn't be satisfactory either. The applications that I need are dependent on MSWind95, and will run with timing problems under MSWind98.)

I'll grant that my needs are conditioned by "these are the applications that I haven't been able to transition to Linux" and "I stopped using MS after they updated their EULA in 2000", so they aren't typical. By Wine isn't all that great for my needs. Even VMs don't seem to work very well.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746049)

The Linux only versions have been gutted in hardware - HP and Asus are the only OEM that don't make their linux offerings the red-headed stepchild of the lot, unless Acer changed dramatically and Lenovo started bothering to advertise it.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29752705)

The problem is that these linux only netbooks have completely sabotaged linux's reputation in the public eye, they invariably come with a horribly crippled vendor supplied linux distro installed, this often makes a poor attempt to behave in a windowsy way but with hackish system utilities and the obvious compatibility issues(it looks like windows, so why doesn't it install the FREE 3D SCREENSAVER i'm being told i can have?). Why couldn't these vendors pay canonical to produce a slightly customised distribution for their hardware, with full access to the add/remove application and synaptic, giving people who buy a linux netbook an easily expandable system with what's basically a free version of the app stores that users are accustomed to using on their mobile phones.

Ubuntu, and particularly its ready adapted eeebuntu and ubuntu-eee variants, run beautifully on even eeepc 701 type hardware, on a more modern netbook with the increased screen resolution and memory available as standard it's a perfect choice for anyone who doesn't have unbreakable ties to windows apps.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29745753)

I guess that depends on what you consider 'many'. I doubt Microsoft would consider it many, because no one needs to wait for this dual boot machine to come out to scrub their OEM installed OS and replace it with Linux, and there aren't 'many' doing that.

Also Win 7 is not yet released. When it is Linux will once again have serious catching up to do. Most every flaw in Vista you could point out in a Linux sales pitch has been fixed in 7. Other than FOSS evangelist nonsense which most of the world does not care about.

And try http://www.bladeforums.com/forums [bladeforums.com]

It works only in IE.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0, Troll)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746083)

1. It loads in Safari. Also checked in other webkit browsers
2. Tested the RC on Netbook level hardware, it's a dog.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29750799)

Despite what mods would like to believe, it still loads in Safari, and linux is still faster than windows 7 in my eee, and that was before BFS came out.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29746241)

Haha, what are you talking about? You mean that forum which uses the vBulletin that I'm totally surfing and reading posts on right now using Firefox? That forum? Please, bring us more of your failure.

As far has how many is 'many', apparently it was enough to scare Microsoft into virtually crushing the *nix OEM pre-install movement.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747835)

And try http://www.bladeforums.com/forums [bladeforums.com]
It works only in IE.

I call bullshit, and suspect that you only tried the IE that was pre-installed on your Windows PC, and lack any other browsers.
That site works fine in all of the browsers installed on my Ubuntu Linux PC (Opera 10.0, Epiphany 2.26.1, Firefox 3.0.14, and Firefox 3.5.3).

Re:Other forms of Linux... (-1, Flamebait)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745873)

Quote 'User demand is not there for [other forms of] Linux'

Totally incorrect. Just you wait, many purchases will scrub both Androis & Windows 7 and install their favourite distro be it Debian, Fedora, SUSE, or the dreaded *buntu (only joking, xbuntu is pretty good).

ah... it's the year of linux on the desktop (or netbook) eh? Where have I heard that before? I guess I'll get karma burned for that eh? ... in 3...2...1...

PS, how long do you have to wait before submitting another post? Mine is ages :(

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1, Interesting)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747373)

I'm not as optimist as the GP but it was the year of Linux on the desktop for me. I formatted my Windows PC back in January and installed Ubuntu. I've got a few Windows VM for testing sites with IE6/7/8 and it's not something I do daily. I even bought a Linux EEEPC a few months ago. In my job (web development for the open source stack) more than half of the people I know use a Mac (because it's Unix and because it just works, they say, but they have still to install a lot of things to be productive) and the remaining part is split between several flavours of Linux and a few flavours of Windows. More Linux boxes than Windows ones I'd say.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (2)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29754189)

heh, looks like the OP got Flaimbait and so did I for responding, I wish people did more discussion rather than just put down with what they don't agree with.

as for my comment, I stand by it saying that the majority of people will not be using Linux. They will be coming into contact with it more due to school etc but until their everyday programs become available on any os flavour, it will never truly be the year of linux on the desktop.

Just because this netbook will be coming in dual-boot doesn't mean that everyone will be using both OS... it's like saying that everyone who owns a car travels at 100+mph because their vehicle is capable of it (hehe, managed to fit in a car analogy finally!)

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745899)

"Just you wait, many purchases will scrub both Android & Windows 7 and install their favourite distro be it Debian, Fedora, SUSE, or the dreaded *buntu (only joking, xbuntu is pretty good)"

Eliminating any reason for the makers to care about putting anything other than Windows on their machines. User = own tech support.

Re:Other forms of Linux... (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747205)

"Just you wait, many purchases will scrub both Android & Windows 7 and install their favourite distro be it Debian, Fedora, SUSE, or the dreaded *buntu (only joking, xbuntu is pretty good)"

For a very very small definition of "many".

can (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29745807)

can i have some sex with teh nb plz?

Best connectivity? (3, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#29745975)

Because it has the best connectivity built into the OS

Riiiight. And any other flavor of Linux is only able to connect at the equivalent level of a coffee can and string telephone. I think the real reason is because Android is a new shiny thing with lots of hype and a comforting corporate mother figure we can all snuggle up to and suckle on.

Re:Best connectivity? (3, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747911)

Android is a new shiny thing with lots of hype and a comforting corporate mother figure we can all snuggle up to and suckle on

Hmm, I tend to anthropomorphize Google as a MILF figure.
That way, I might enjoy eventually being screwed...

I want one without Windows. (3, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746297)

Ill take any darn OS if i just can avoid paying the Microsoft tax. The common misconception that nobody wanted Linux on netbooks is utter bullshit. They sold boatloads of netbooks before they started shipping them with a heavily discounted XP and suddenly, despite consumer demand they also yanked any Linux loaded netbook.

User demand not there for Linux? (3, Insightful)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746395)

Really?

What have companies do to seriously create or satisfy that demand?

They try a shy toe in the water (like ASUS did), are wildly successful with a Linux only product, and then, as soon as Microsoft asks them to wag the tail, roll in and play dead they do so, in some cases with particular relish.

The demand, or at the very least, interest, is there: trade magazines, conferences, server installations and desktop installations (many of which are not publicized because they are done internally by big companies, you would be surprised to know some of the names doing this) say the demand is there.

Google Linux for bunnies sakes, the amount of information out there is astronomic. That is simply not coherent with lack of interest.

The demand for half hearted attempts to make Linux available may not be there, but I would like to see if there is no demand for a Linux machine running a well configured enterpirse distribution (RedHat, Ubuntu or even SuSe) backed up by proper marketing (Dell has spreads almost every day in free newspapers here in London, I would like to see the same kind of commitment and effort put towards a line of machines runing Linux exclusively).

Don't tell me the demand is not there when you have not tried seriously to satisfy a need.

Re:User demand not there for Linux? (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747693)

I think your memory and reasoning are both a bit faulty.

First off, why should companies bother to try to create a demand for Linux when they already have a demand for Windows based products? Especially when current data shows that this would only increase their market by about 5%.

ASUS introduced the EEE series and it was mildly successful. It became a major success only AFTER they introduced the WinXP version. And, sales of the WinXP version vastly outstripped the sales of the Linux version

You use as your barometer of public interest industry specific items, non-user applications, and installation imposed by corporate governance. That is disingenuous as the general public does not read IT trade magazines or attend IT conferences, or have home servers. You state we don't hear about the major installations, but fail to name any or provide any support for your contention. And,you fail to mention companies returning to Windows installations.

A number major computer manufactures have tried to introduce Linux based platforms, with disappointing results and higher numbers of calls for assistance and complaints.

Are you sure you want to use Google to measure interest? There are three times as many pages for Windows than for Linux, and when one considers that Linux users are much more likely to have a website devoted to their preferred OS than Windows users, things do not looks as rosy as you paint them.

Dell has spreads almost every day in free newspapers here in London, I would like to see the same kind of commitment and effort put towards a line of machines runing Linux exclusively

You are putting the cart before the horse. Again, why should Dell, or any company for that matter, spend that kind of money to attempt to create a demand for a product that will start off with, at best, 5% market share? That is just bad business sense.

What I find most amusing about your comment is that you seem to think it is the computer manufacturers' job to promote Linux. Computer manufacturers do not run commercials for Windows, nor do they create the demand for Windows. Microsoft does that. It is the responsibility of those that create and support Linux to create the demand for Linux, and thus far, they have done a terrible job of creating that demand. You want Dell to create ads for a Linux based line, but there is not a great enough demand in the general market to warrant such a thing.

The companies you should be looking to for ads and creating demand are RedHat, SuSE, and Canonical. They are the ones who have a stake in increasing general user adoption of Linux. They and the community have to improve Linux's image as user-unfriendly, difficult to use and support, and application poor. And, the community has to improve its own image, which is that it is hostile to anyone who doesn't know enough about their computer and Linux to answer one's own question.

RTFM N00B!!!

Re:User demand not there for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29760611)

First off, why should companies bother to try to create a demand for Linux when they already have a demand for Windows based products? Especially when current data shows that this would only increase their market by about 5%.

Let's see, I'm selling a commodity product (laptop) with razor thin profit margins, I can potentially replace one of the most costly components (Operating System) with a free one. And the "current data" is worthless in a market that moves as fast as computer technology. Also, what new product doesn't start out with a 0 percent market share. Your 5 percent figure is a red herring.

ASUS introduced the EEE series and it was mildly successful. It became a major success only AFTER they introduced the WinXP version. And, sales of the WinXP version vastly outstripped the sales of the Linux version

This is not true and you are really in the wrong place trying to fool people with blatant historical revisioning.

You state we don't hear about the major installations, but fail to name any or provide any support for your contention. And,you fail to mention companies returning to Windows installations.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here but if it is that there aren't any major installations, again, you are full of shit. As for people switching back, nice strawman. Some people are going to switch back, that's human nature if nothing else. People are fickle.

There are three times as many pages for Windows than for Linux,

This shows an enormous amount of pent up demand if Linux has such a small amount of desktop market share yet generates 1/3 the search results of Windows.

why should Dell, or any company for that matter, spend that kind of money to attempt to create a demand for a product that will start off with, at best, 5% market share? That is just bad business sense

When the iPhone came out, it had 0 percent market share.

What I find most amusing about your comment is that you seem to think it is the computer manufacturers' job to promote Linux.

You promote what you want to sell. It isn't anybody's job. Almost every advertisement I see from a computer manufacturer has the "$OEM recommends Windows Vista". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are getting kickbacks to promote Windows.

The companies you should be looking to for ads and creating demand are RedHat, SuSE, and Canonical.

True that.

And, the community has to improve its own image, which is that it is hostile to anyone who doesn't know enough about their computer and Linux to answer one's own question.

RTFM N00B!!!

I suggest you read here [ubuntuforums.org] for a thorough refutation of this argument.

Your contentions are mostly erroneous, bordering on intentionally misleading. I have read many of your postings. This one is typical. If you think you are going to fool this crowd, I suggest you get some new more up to date arguments.

Re:User demand not there for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29747967)

> many of which are not publicized because they are done internally by big companies

Whatever, big companies aren't sitting around waiting for Dell to sell them a Linux laptop from a newspaper ad. Typical freetard who can't even keep his own argument straight.

Re:User demand not there for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29749401)

[i]They try a shy toe in the water (like ASUS did), are wildly successful with a Linux only product, and then, as soon as Microsoft asks them to wag the tail, roll in and play dead they do so, in some cases with particular relish.[/i]

Are you sure it wasn't a marketing ploy all along? Windows was ignoring them until they threatened (and showed) they could go with open source? And then they got MS to sign a contract for their netbooks? Like some sort of sinister marketing machination?

Re:User demand not there for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29751181)

Googling Linux shows quite a decline. http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

When will operating systems become commodities? (2, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746513)

I am still waiting for the day when operating systems will become interchangeable commodities. Or at least, when software development does not depend on the OS.

Debian now supports running with multiple kernels. Apple's POSIX compatibility layer runs on their customized Mach kernel. Most packages run on BSD and Linux. I can write software using Java, .NET, or C++ (Qt, Boost, APR, ...) and it will run on almost anything. So why do we care about operating systems any longer? Why is this the #1 thing when buying a piece of computer hardware? Should we not be at the point where any half-competent developer can just code to one of the many many cross-platform "platforms" and be OS-independent?

Yes, there are certainly features that are OS specific. But usually, those are hardware-specific. I can't expect every app that runs on my XBOX 360 to run on an iPhone. But I should expect that basic common tools can run on any netbook, regardless of OS. Or that a simple PDA application will run on any cell phone with a keyboard and touch screen.

If the world was filled with the kind of programmers who hang around on Slashdot, then this would have happened 10 years ago. I am sometimes amazed that it is still happening today.

Re:When will operating systems become commodities? (2, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746889)

Integration.

Its very easy to make a game that both works on Windows and on an Xbox. The experience will be completly different. The same game that would run on both Mac and Windows (let say WoW): while you're in the game, its the same thing. When you have to troubleshot your graphic card or your network connectivity, very different.

People also care very very much about whats built in (the default apps for average users, the administration tools for advanced users).

You're right in that it doesn't matter as much as it used to. But it still matters. Sure, making a Hello World on TI calculator, a Windows box, a Ubuntu machine, or a Mac, is all the same. Getting the user experience that your customers expect however, is going to be completly different. When Windows 7 came out, the first thing I heard was people on the chrome discussions asking when the Aero Preview in the task bar would be the same in Chrome as it is in IE8. You don't do that the same way on Windows as you do in Linux. And its those little integration details that matter (and why many apps don't even always work -exactly- as is on all Linux distros, nevermind completly different boxes)

Year of the Linux on desktops? :) (2, Interesting)

ivoras (455934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746695)

As Apple took FreeBSD and Mach and slapped a pretty GUI on top, making millions on the new product, so now it happens with Android and ChromeOS. On the other hand we have Gnome and KDE and Linux distributions that use them like Ubuntu and SUSE, which constantly fail to take foothold with users.

Some things clearly need both money and firm guidance...

Re:Year of the Linux on desktops? :) (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747405)

As Apple took FreeBSD and Mach and slapped a pretty GUI on top, making millions on the new product, [...]

So it was the year of FreeBSD on the desktop :-)

Re:Year of the Linux on desktops? :) (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747583)

As Apple took FreeBSD and Mach and slapped a pretty GUI on top, making millions on the new product, [...]

So it was the year of FreeBSD on the desktop :-)

Yes, this was my point :) When the "year of Linux on desktops" actually happens, the actual product used will most likely not be called "Linux" and the users are only see the GUI side... which *isn't* bad.

Re:Year of the Linux on desktops? :) (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29753153)

I don't think they're buying Macs because somebody made FreeBSD pretty. I think they're buying it because it's the new Mac. I don't think they're buying phones with Android because it's so pretty, or even because it has Google's name on it. I think they're buying it cause it's the new "smartphone" with a touchscreen and iPhone isn't available for their phone company.

Why no linux? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746705)

Because Microsoft is willing to pay overtly or under the table to keep linux off the sub notebooks. Who knows what secret deal Acer had with Microsoft to kill off Linux? Now Android is on the block. Another opportunity for it to shake Microsoft down for some more money to keep Android off. Then some more shakedowns to keep Chrome off subnetbooks. At some point even Microsoft will realize the folly and get out, leaving the playing field level for Linux, Android and Chrome.

Re:Why no linux? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29746831)

Do you realize that Android is Linux?

Re:Why no linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29747523)

What?!? Next you will try to tell me that my beloved Ubuntu is Linux as well!

We don't need your kind around here.

Re:Why no linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29752441)

Android is _not_ linux. Android only uses linux as a boot-strap to run Googles custom Java VM. The user is completely cut off from the kernel.

Re:Why no linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29752557)

I thought it stood for:
Android Not Da Real linOx Is, Dude
The grammar is fucked up, but that's because Google was founded by two Germans.

"30 Seconds to Power On" (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747631)

The article fails to mention if the 30-second boot is for Windows or for Android. 30 seconds isn't especially fast.

Why not install MSIE with wine? (2, Funny)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29747993)

Re:Why not install MSIE with wine? (0, Troll)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29748133)

Putting Wine on Linux netbooks is not a good idea.
1. It gives a false impression of Linux as an inferior no cost alternative to run your Windows apps.
2. It provides compatibility with many forms of Windows malware.
3. It reduces the pressure on the user to find open source alternatives.

Does Microsoft's OEM License Allow This? (1)

organgtool (966989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749391)

I thought that Microsoft's OEM license prevented manufacturers from loading other operating systems in a dual-boot configuration alongside Windows. Wasn't that the heart of the lawsuit from Be Inc. against Microsoft?

Re:Does Microsoft's OEM License Allow This? (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749855)

You are correct about the lawsuit, which is why that provision was taken out of the OEM licensing agreement. Anti-trust rulings and all that.

Re:Does Microsoft's OEM License Allow This? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29749995)

There were a lot of evil requirements before the antitrust suit - for example, manufacturers had to pay for a windows license for every computer they sold, even one with another OS (or they wouldn't get the OEM discount).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...