Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Extends XP For Low-Cost Laptops
Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft says it will extend the sales of Windows XP Home to OEMs by several years, but it's not in response to the SaveXP petition. Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops. XP will be available for OEMs until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, whichever date comes later. This greatly extends the earlier XP deadline of June 30 of this year (which was an extension itself), and means XP will potentially be installed on new computers nearly a decade after its original release. The author of the article suggests that the post-June 2008 release of Atom-based laptops encouraged Microsoft to extend XP, even though Intel says Atom can support Vista. Intel also claims that 'Moblin' Linux will be available on Atom-equipped mobile devices starting this summer."
That's the bottom line: the "end user" is not Microsoft's customer, the hardware manufacturers are.
I think it needs to be made clear the following: XP Home will be available for budget laptops, such as the EEE PC, OLPC, Cloudbook, and Intel's Classmate PC. XP Home and Pro for standard vendors is still being taken off the market as of June 30. This is only for budget laptops; Dell and the other OEM's won't be carrying XP after June 30. Some of the AP stories and writeups on other websites are making it sound like they've gone back on their statement, and XP will be available again. This is to prevent Linux from getting a foothold in the budget laptop game.
indeed
in the years leading up to 2000 there were major advances in the windows/PC world every couple of years
* 1993 - windows NT, a proper 32 bit version of windows.
* 1995 - windows 95, introduced plug and play allowing users to easilly add devices. Unfortunately based on a rather crummy 16/32 bit hybrid codebase that gave better support for older apps but limited stability and security.
* 1998 - windows 98, introduced decent support for USB (there was some support in the last OEM service releases of 95 but USB seriously got going with 98) allowing much easier addition of arbitary external devices.
* 2000 - windows 2000, brought together the stability of the NT line with support for critical things like plug and play and USB.
Since then the windows world has really stagnated. MS is adding new features but by and large they just aren't that significant to most users particually when the performance cost is considered.
Meanwhile linux has as you say been really catching up and even surpassing windows in many areas. For people with no apps tying them to windows (or who are buying a machine they don't plan to run such apps on) linux is now a very viable choice.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Um, the 'big three' (ubuntu, fedora, suse) ALL fit on one CD, as they all have liveCDs. And on that one CD (ubuntu at least, been a while since I messed with the othe rones) you get:
An OS, a window manager, a desktop environment, tons of games, an office suite, an image editor, a DVD writer, a ton of 3D effects, a ton of screensavers, etc.
To compare, on the vista DVD, you get:
An OS+window manager+desktop environment (and you can't choose which ones), some games, a few screensavers, 3-4 3D effects, and that's pretty much it. And when installed it takes up what, like 10 gigs?
And as far as the 6 CDs or 1 DVD Linux downloads, these include ALL packages, so if you don't have internet access you can still install all your stuff. But Most of them you don't even need. I just set up a LAMP server today (no gui). I used CDs 1 and 2. That's it. And about 90% was from CD1. So yeah, I would say Linux is pretty damn small indeed.