For the first time Linux may actually ship on more desktops than Windows or the Mac.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/jzemlin/2008/10/29/linux-to-ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/

I guess that " 1 % " figure no longer applies. lol

Windows 7 will meet resistance on netbooks, unless Microsoft makes some concessions. Because of licensing. Assuming netbook prices predominantly drop well below $300 (without telco subsidies), Windows 7 would cost too much for many netbook OEMs. That brings up the other reason Vista has so little traction on netbooks. As I explained earlier, many newer models can run Vista. But licensing cost is prohibitive compared to Linux or Windows XP Home for these low-powered, lower-cost portables.

I agree, and this leads into a further discussion of the culture of MBA's that is running Microsoft into the ground by creating too many variations of Windows and charging too much money in the face of Linux competition.

I liked this article Joe, it was informative, it asks mostly the same questions I would be asking.

While its too early, even for me to pass judgment on Windows Seven on the netbooks, I say this. It still early, but saying that Seven is only using 448mb of ram to run on a netbook, as opposed to approximate 550 for Vista, is not that good a number. Ask yourself what that number would be on the same netbook for XP? And then Linux. One has to wonder where all the memory is being used in Vista/Seven as opposed to XP and Linux? Could it possibly be in protecting DRM?

The problem for Microsoft is that Netbooks are supposed to be cheap. And cheap mean low resource, and not much profit margin. I suspect that Microsoft with this beta of Seven is only at the point where it will run acceptable, on only the fastest Netbooks, and not much else. This is not to say they might not get there, by the time Seven comes out, but I have serious doubts about that. I foresee, looking into my Cystal Ball, XP in some versions, being extended once again, even after Seven comes out, and at a reduced cost to OEM's, as to keep Linux off most of them. But then again, its only a guess.

Your last paragraph was a great one Joe. The lines between Netbooks and cheap sub $500 laptops will start to blur, when some add in larger LCD's. At that point, there is a new market for these. I would consider buying a netbook with a larger LCD and keyboard, as I do not require the resources or ever plan to run Vista or Vista R2=Seven.

As Netbooks get cheaper and cheaper, two things will happen. The first thing to happen, will be to put pressure on the cheaper full size laptops, to reduce price. The second thing to happen, will be the beginning of the end for Microsoft. It will be to put pressure on Microsoft to reduce the cost of windows on netbooks.

To follow up on this Joe, I believe you had some previous articles, where you said the OEM cost of Vista Basic was $49, and that Microsoft sell XP Home for OEM netbooks at $16 to keep Linux off them. And still this may not be enough, as the competition on Netbooks increases, the cost will go down, and that $16 compared to $0 for Linux, will become a tempting option.

The other point is that for many buying a new computer, they may actually forgo a full size computer with Vista on it, in favor of the Netbook, because it has XP on it, instead of Vista. This in part, may also drive the sales of Netbooks.

My last comment should have red "cost to OEM's for Vista Basic and XP home." The idea was the price that OEM's paid for the pre-installed windows, not what consumer's paid for it buy just buying a box.

My basic thought is, as computer hardware prices nosedives, due to Netbooks, and recession, Microsoft will come under extreme pressure to cut prices of OEM windows, all consumer versions.

An interesting idea, its not Linux that will kill off Windows, but the price of Windows itself. As Hardware once again becomes cheaper, MS will be forced to reduce the price, or cede major ground to Linux. At some point, and it may already be there with XP Home on the Netbook, it cost more to make the Windows software, than Microsoft can sell it for. Software and IP, are a commodity after all.

I beg to differ on the remark about windows price, once upon a time linux truly was open source. Little by little overtime that reality has some what changed, there are distros out there that are not completely open source.

Also buying a new system that comes pre loaded with an OS regardless if it is expensive or not, the fact your paying so much for a new computer the OS cost is ridiculed. So I think its an unfair way to weigh two competitors.

The Hand :wrote

...." its not Linux that will kill off Windows, but the price of Windows itself. As Hardware once again becomes cheaper, MS will be forced to reduce the price, or cede major ground to Linux."

-----------------------------------------------------

Linux (by itself) will not kill off Windows and neither will Mac OS. It won't the malware, virus or the price problems that Windows faces. It will be a entirely different matter altogether that no one is talking about.

It will be the open source mandates that will end up killing Windows and other proprietary software companies and just hand the market over to Linux.
Sound farfetched?

The growing initiative of open source mandates will greatly help Linux improve its "market share". If this movement continues the way it has, expect Linux to have double digit figures in two years and a real significant market share in five to ten years...just by the open source mandates.

The most recent huge example is Russia where it is now mandated that schools in all regions go open source...unless the school themselves want to pay for the software themselves. You do the math...

And Russia is not just a isolated example, this movement is spreading fast across the world as cities, corporations, school systems, government entities, even whole cities look to save money and those excessive licensing fees are on the chopping block.

Ballmer once called Linux a cancer, maybe what he really meant to say was that the open source mandates are a cancer (to his company).

Sad thing is there is nothing Ballmer or the paid MSFT astroturfers can do anything about open source mandates.

We can read anywhere about Vista, Windows 7, Vaporware and read about Windows on going various malware, virus problems and performance issues.

Yet Oddly enough, no one in any Windows forums or blogs, bloggers seem to be talking about the real problem that MSFT faces ...and that is the open source mandates.

Why?

I reckon Microsoft is pulling together their code base on all OS'es. Be it Windows Mobile (gonna hit 7 soon too!) Windows Server, Azure backbone and just plain old Windows itsself.
Now as for netbooks I reckon theid go for a Windows 'starter' version. Same old Windows 7, just with a lot stripped from it:
- No networking features (as did home) because they want enterprises to get an Enterprise Agreement.
- No administrator functions, same reason as above.

They'll just leave the operating system intact enough for home users to use as a netbook. Browse the internet, chat with friends, look at a picture or two and type a letter (via Office Live).

That's my prediction anyways. Now where's the Microsoft-Watch bookie?

Ow and one small follow up regarding costs...
See it like this. If home users use Windows 7 they'll want it in the office too. Which is what brings in the big money.
So basically a cheap version of Windows 7 is just advertising. They can spend billions on ad campaigns (which they still will probably) but nothing is better than being able to create your own 'fanboys'. A stripped down version of Windows is just advertising costs. Nothing more.
So a cheap version on netbooks makes sense. Especially if they leave all the connectivity to other devices in.

Having to charge a low price for Windows 7 to stay competitive with Linux will be a big problem for Microsoft. This is a company built on 60%+ gross margins. They're proud of the fact that it cost more to develop Vista than to send Apollo 11 to the moon. All their low-to-zero-margin products have been worthless crap (Microsoft Works, Outlook Express for Windows, Internet Explorer...).

In short, the rise of the netbook market has maneouvred them into a corner, and there doesn't seem to be any way out.

Having to charge a low price for Windows 7 to stay competitive with Linux will be a big problem for Microsoft. This is a company built on 60%+ gross margins. They're proud of the fact that it cost more to develop Vista than to send Apollo 11 to the moon. All their low-to-zero-margin products have been worthless crap (Microsoft Works, Outlook Express for Windows, Internet Explorer...).

In short, the rise of the netbook market has maneouvred them into a corner, and there doesn't seem to be any way out.

Man if you believe that a full version of Windows 7 could actually run on a netbook then you guys are dreaming. They are gonna run a stripped down basic version on netbooks so as to not cannibalise their existing cushy OEM contract. Witness the spec with which they say you cant run XP home on. they are artificially trying to remain competitive but linux is showing the public the lie that is Microsoft. For the first time ever people are witnessing out in the open the deviousness of Microsoft.ie you cant put more than 1gb of ram into a netbook, lol, only in the windows world, you cant put more than a 1GB processor into a netbook, lol again. With linux you can put whatever you dam want into a netbook and run linux on it and show people what a crock of s**t Micorosoft are. Their OEM strongarm tactics are finally being seen by the average person and most are unimpressed. Im so happy Microsoft if gonna die.

American companies are going back to the forest and act as monkeys.(balmer).

I can't help but wonder how much of "Windows 7 on a netbook" will be software optimisations, and how much will be hardware improvements.

For example, the EEE first shipped with an underclocked 900MHz Celeron M processor. The latest ones are shipping with 1.6Ghz Atom processors.
(The clock speeds are not directly comparable due to architectural differences, but the Atom should have the edge in most cases.)

It seems to me that by the time Windows 7 ships, netnooks will probably be on the cusp of running Windows Vista anyway, albeit without Aero and other fanciness.

Sure, Windows 7 will run better - that I believe. But I just don't see the hardware standing still.

And regardless, being able to run on a netbook is not enough.

As a user of a netbook, I'm often noticing that some apps just aren't designed for the format. They have long, tall dialogue boxes that slip off the top or bottom of the screen, for example. Or they assume a certain screen size or orientation.

Hardware can't necessarily improve on that. The screen can be made a bit larger - a hundred pixels in each direction or so, perhaps. But ultimately, it's a small device with a small screen - packing in the resolution just makes it harder to read and use, so we'll have to change the software rather than rely upon hardware improvements there.

Currently, Windows and Linux are as bad as each other in this regard. But the "release early, release often" iterative development style favours Linux in adapting to this.

Worse (for Microsoft), the organisational structure of Linux distributions makes Linux a potentially very fast adapter. I don't necessarily need to log bug reports about dodgy dialogue boxes with fourteen different companies, as I would with Windows and a selection of third-party software running on it. I go to the distribution first, and they can look at working with the upstream to get it fixed.

That's pretty nice, for both users and for the software community.

And take a look at what Ubuntu is doing with their Netbook Remix. It's a remarkably good idea for how to implement a screen-space efficient yet very usable UI.

Windows can't do that. Well, it could, but if it did too many skinned apps would break "out of the box". And too many apps outside of Microsoft's control would have issues.
It's a messy nightmare of adaptation to the format, and given how (rightly) proud Microsoft are of their backwards compatibility, I don't expect to see them breaking apps just to imitate Ubuntu.
Especially as the main reason to choose Windows over Linux would be that you need to run Windows applications....

So Windows is probably going to continue to be a second-class citizen on netbooks, precisely because its advantages are also its weaknesses.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Netbuntu project joining the Medibuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu style releases - with a specific focus on these kinds of issues.

The smooth experience and optimisations that could deliver will mean that merely running on the hardware won't be enough for Windows 7...

Another thing to note here is that with every new version of Windows the screen real estate seems to shrink. It started with XP and it's theme which increased window and task bars. Vista added even more but made it transparent. And the ribbon, which will be the core part of Windows 7 GUI, is simply too much for such small screens. Heck, it's too much for 20" screens.

Microsoft is kinda dead in the water.

Windows 7 has multi touch support. To stay competitive in the netbook market that feature will have to land in it.

This is a double sided sword cut its features too low Linux will still out sell them. Problem is Linux is basically getting embeded in lots of these netbooks.

Netbooks are not staying were Microsoft tried to lock them ie under 10 inch screen. So all bar the top highly powerful laptops are going to get eaten up by this process.

You are also forgetting hardware makers are also branching out into net pc's. So desktop and laptop market is under attack.

MS set limits now they have to live with it. If they had not have set ram and screen limits the laptop market would have been even more destroyed by now for them to make a profit.

I think people are losing their way here... the average consumer/business person only cares about the operating system to feel comfortable. What they really care about is that the device runs the applications they want to run and that they can do what they want to do.

I went for the EeePC 701 with Linux, and it worked well for a time... doing everything I wanted to do until I decided I wanted to use it for my work. Then I collided with the need to use Outlook Calendar and the web interface to Exchange just did not work well enough, so I went with XP. Now do I care whether it runs XP or Vista? No, because all my apps work fine in XP. Will I care about Windows 7? No unless an app I wish to use only runs on that or Windows 7 gives me a performance improvement that is very unlikely.

It is all about the applications.

I have to add a quick note agreeing with Philip (who isn't myself, for the sake of clarity!).

I didn't want to mention the Ribbon in case it takes things off course, as any contentious topic can. But the fact is that most of Microsoft's usability work has resulted in larger buttons and more screen real estate being used.

There are good reasons for this - for instance, in making the window action buttons bigger in Windows XP, plus colouring the close button in a bright red, the button is both more obvious and its function clearer.

But that increased the size of the title bar for each window by a few pixels, too.

The fact is that not everyone has perfect sight. Many of the readers here will be wearing glasses or contacts anyway. We have to accept that we may need to use more screen real estate for less options if we want friendlier software, and instead find better ways of working with that.

However, Linux is in a better position to be innovative and responsive in this case.

The only lead Windows has is in touch-screen technology. Microsoft have done a lot of work in this area, and it lends itself well to netbooks with their small screens - however, I'm still not convinced touch screens are good for long periods of use.
And by the time people get used to touch screens, Linux will no doubt have caught up anyway - experimental support is already there (as I understand it).
But still, touch screens are the only "joker" I see in this area of the market that Windows could play...

Ian Nock is absolutely right. Microsoft now (many in the company saw this before but they were powerless to move management to see it also) sees they can not live on an island so they're trying to move the island to the web.

They can increase the relevance of outlook and exchange by building a truly interoperable OS kernel for the client and a true set of Office services on the web. But, they are moving at a very late date, having squandered years while their management focused on all the wrong things on the web for all the wrong reasons.

Given all the hoorah and hubbub around the now stale sounding PDC, it may be easy to forget Microsoft competitors leading up to the summer of 2008 have all been, not only talking about, but showing their web products and projects to answer whatever Microsoft might be able to answer.

Those have not gone away and, in many instances, have been steadily building market while Microsoft fiddled and farted at the square dance.

Ballmer played chicken with the wrong people. Dead man's curve is in the rear view mirror and the telephone pole is directly ahead.

I disagree with Ian Nock.

It's not all about the applications. It's all about the use cases.

Which isn't as snappy, in fact it sounds pretty awful - but it's true.

Ian didn't want to use Outlook. He wanted to look at his calendar, which was stored on an Exchange Server. That's his use case. He knows he can do that via Outlook, but could he have done it via Evolution or some other software?

And if we removed "stored on an Exchange Server", the answer is definitely yes - Linux has plenty of calendar applications available.

(I'm not honestly sure if his precise use case can be done under Linux, and I'm not going to sidetrack myself by finding out, as most users don't have an Exchange Server kicking around to store their calendar on!)

The goal of Linux - and Apple OS X, and any other competitor to Windows - has to be to provide systems where as many use cases as possible are covered, with a minimum of fuss.

The reason that netbooks have been so popular is that there's a use case which is something like "boot quickly, browse the web, check email, perhaps do some light work on documents and spreadsheets".

They fulfil that use case brilliantly.

It's not the applications, it's the use cases. Only when communication with an application is specifically mentioned in a use case do applications come into it.

Some people may cite user familiarity with applications, saying that this is incredibly important and that mere use cases aren't enough. But that's poppycock, and if you believe otherwise then grab an old copy of that same application and try to work with it.

Applications change over time. Most people are now becoming used to that fact - you can't, sadly, learn one interface and expect it to never change - not even within one application across versions.

So it's use cases all the way, and for most use cases Linux on netbooks will suffice.

The "goal" of computing should be to provide systems where ALL use cases are covered, with No fuss.

The NetBook Steve Sinofsky showed at PDC 2008 also has Aero Glass, so the 'fan dangles' as you put it are turned on. The fact that this niche form factor started out with Linux and Windows came after and has steadily dominated the market proves that Linux is just no ready for any category of computing on the desktop, whether its Desktops, NoteBooks or NetBooks.

The reason why Vista is not popular on NetBooks is not because of performance, but disk foot print. Windows Vista uses more disk space than what is available in most NetBooks which is usually 8 to 16 GBs. Vista uses around 11 GBs. But Windows XP remains a good solution for those customers and it has proven so. The fact that the return rate for Linux NetBooks is 4x higher than that of Windows based NetBooks shows that Linux and Open Source has a lot to learn.

Andrew DA La La Coa$ter, a known Microsoft astrotufer says:
"The reason why Vista is not popular on NetBooks is not because of performance, but disk foot print. Windows Vista uses more disk space than what is available in most NetBooks which is usually 8 to 16 GBs. Vista uses around 11 GBs."................

A lot of fancy verbiage, when one word would have sufficed: bloat. But then maybe Microsoft pays him by the word? Anyone ever notice that Andrew never posts a link to back up his claims? Was he told not by Ballmer Central? So how many Vista licenses sold now Andrew, 300 million? LOL. You count kept going up along with most of your bogus claims. Andrew uses a Mac computer as well, he is a complete fake.

And, by the way, Andre... MSFT has a lot to learn about bloat. Minwin is reported to be 26MB.

That's not a kernel. That's the whole damn silo.

Microsoft engineers need to either be freed up to do what they know they can do... if they know what they can do. Or, they need to be jettisoned over the side and new minds brought on board.

But, I don't think it's the engineering resources at fault. Engineer's, by nature, are an inquisitive and resourceful sort.

History tells us the real bloat can be found in management where stubborn protection of territory, miserly wringing of assets and waiting for the past-perfect moment are admired traits.

When Minwin gets to be in the range of 1MB and less, the market will know Microsoft is serious about the new age and the MSFT shareprice will reflect that acknowledgment.

So let me post the link for you friend Andrew, and help you out, since you can't seem to do anything to back up even the smallest of your claims. You will never make MVP that way.

Ubuntu Confirms Linux Netbook Returns Higher than Anticipated
http://blog.laptopmag.com/ubuntu-confirms-linux-netbook-returns-higher-than-anticpated

"We don’t know what the XP return rates are. But I will say that the return rate is above normal for netbooks that offer open-source operating systems,” Carr echoed. Carr highlighted a few reasons why Ubuntu-running netbooks are returned more often. “Unclear selling is happening, typically online. The customer will get their netbook sent to their home and they imagine to find something like a Microsoft desktop, but they see a brown Ubuntu version. They are unwilling to learn it and they were expecting to have Windows.”

Carr stressed that, in these cases, it doesn’t even matter how good or bad the Linux OS is. These customers just don’t want to try something new. “We said a long time ago, we didn’t want to make a Windows clone. It has a different interface especially with the Ubuntu Netbook Remix. We think it’s a better way but it’s not the same way people are used to.".......................

So there you have it, did not matter how good it was. People bought it, thought they were getting XP, and returned it. Its that the users had no experience with Linux, and just wanted XP, therefore returned it right away. You know, windows users who are not knowledgeable, and thought Linux was XP.

@Andre, you can be quoted saying Vista was the future yet you now say:

"The fact that this niche form factor started out with Linux and Windows came after and has steadily dominated the market proves that Linux is just no ready for any category of computing on the desktop, whether its Desktops, NoteBooks or NetBooks."

Let us take note that Windows has dominated the NetBook market with XP, not Vista (the so called future). Thus we can see that Microsoft's "future" was not aligned with the market's future. So in a way Microsoft wasn't ready for the NetBooks either. They had to backpedal.

BTW, I keep forgetting to ask you a favor. Can you please tell someone in Microsoft to fix the "Windows is Resuming" message in Spanish. Both my laptops keep reminding me this when I read "Windows de esta Reanudando" (Windows is of Resuming) instead of "Windows se está Reanudando" (Windows is Resuming). Speaks tons about Microsoft's quality control.

@The Hand

"People bought it, thought they were getting XP, and returned it." You nailed it. Most people don't know there is an alternative to Windows on the PC market. I know people who think MS Office and Windows are the same and of course a lot believe PCs and Windows are one and the same. This is only further emphasized by the recent PC ads. Under the umbrella of such misinformation I wonder how can people like Andre boast such a great success for Windows when a) most people are upset at its everyday issues b) are not aware of alternatives. Oh and c) have backpedaled to XP on full blown laptops too, not only NetBooks.

If Andre really wants to talk about "return rates," then maybe we should talk about the 35% or more of the users who downgrade Vista to XP. Or the 33 to over 50% hardware FAILURE rate of the XBox360.

The sillyness of Andre Da Co$ta.
Quote Co$ta "Vista uses around 11 GBs" and then he goes on to say "Linux and Open Source has a lot to learn."
-
I think that says it all about MS's opinion on bloat. To talk about 11gbs so lightly and then go on to say that Linux has a lot to learn. Er Co$ta, theres a Linux distro which is a complete functional OS in under 150 meg, which can run on a obsolete machine and youre saying Linux has a lot to learn?

Running ubuntu with an optimised kernal for eeepc..(not much really cf. generic kernal)

and WinXP pro

on boot up they use about 390mb vs 380mb... but for that 10mb that i hear M$ fanboys cheering.. i have no graphical accelerations on XP but i have compiz fusion on the ubuntu..

this is on a netbook with similar specification..
XP had about 20% more CPU usage than the ubuntu at baseline..setup for daily use.. e.g. antivirus(Avast) and a firewall in XP.

note: both installed at the same time- dual boot.

from my own experience i think linux just needs a marketing team. personally it is a superior OS and im not an IT professional..im a medical one. the out-of-box in linux is sooo much better than when i was comparing redhat 6.4 to XP. I prefer M$ office 2003 to 2007.. (interface kills me and the netbook came with m$ works.. ) .. so i logically swapped to openoffice3.

points to address in linux:
-improved out of box experience. e.g. more GUI for configuring for novices (personally terminal is ok.. but i have more things to think about)

points for windows:
-WinME and vista left bad tastes in my mouth.. owned both.. want a refund.
-Not everyone cares about aero.
-stability... id like not to freeze up or reformat as often as i have public holidays.

If the hardware was supported by more manufacturers..

i suspect linux could do a OSX.. just work and simple which is what joe the plumber wants.

Without professional advice, the average customer faces a big challenge when picking up a computer, an electronic device or any form of accessories, since he or she lacks the technical background to support the choice...