it is because their standard business methods are to use marketing tactics to win market share. dah. They leverage OEM deals to force OEMs to exclude non-Windows products, they leverage sales channels to exclude non-Windows products, they pay for "research" so often flawed and twisted it's obvious flaws are found on day one of the release, they have multi million dollar accounts to be used to keep large public accounts from bringing in OSS, they publish general FUD about the competition. I can go on and on about how they use marketing to be anti-competitive and how new technology companies have been terminated because the product didn't work ONLY on Windows.
So what they spend more on R&D, it almost never makes it out the door and if you've ever been to something like eTech, Microsoft Research presentations are like going to a 2nd graders show and tell. Sure the presentation is all wiz-bang but the content is lacking. Most of the rest of the technology companies are showing game changing technologies and Microsoft will show a touch panel. Anyways, if you'd read one of the leaked MS memo's from the 90s, you'll know that the MS R&D money is often used to keep some of the brightest educational minds out of the hands of the competition. They have a play-pen to work in so they don't do something for someone in the real world that Microsoft will have to kill off with marketing tricks.
That is why they are called a marketing company above being called a technology company. they can't even make a tiny handheld OS that worth a shit even after something like $100 billion were spent on it over the last 15 years. Windows CE/Mobile sucks while Apple in less than two years crushed them with a better product and with far far less people and dollars spent. And hey, Apple is making money off their handheld OS while Microsoft has been losing about $1 billion annually on Windows CE/Mobile for it's most of its entire life. They are NOT a technology company.
I might go with the idea that they "can't afford to do two entirely different architectures" but that bit about product diversification is bull. They boosted the hardware performance of the original EeePC to support Windows but instead of just selling that same hardware with Linux on it, they changed the hardware for the Linux models and then sold the Linux systems at more cost than the Windows versions. This too was probably a contract thing with Microsoft but the kicker is they allowed a contract requiring product diversification just to get funny money back from Microsoft. If it's that they have to ship Windows because of a Microsoft contract or can't ship ARM/Linux because of a Microsoft contract, it's the same thing. They are not in command of their own destiny by they their own greed and must sit out the ARM race. IMO.
probably under contract with Microsoft. You know, the fine print that keeps showing up after 20 years of company lawyers being surprised by Microsoft's tactics. The funny thing about lawyers, each one thinks _they_ are smarter than the other lawyers and keep signing deals with Microsoft thinking they're getting away with something.
It was obvious to me that they signed a deal with the devil when the next gen eEEPC's shipped. They used the 50/50 rule to say they ship 50% Linux systems and 50% Windows systems and that's why there were no Linux netbooks on store shelves. They boosted the hardware so Windows would run but then boosted the hardware more for the Linux versions and charged more for Linux. These are all signs of a "special" deal with Microsoft and they seem to be locked into this deal at the expense of the ARM systems. After all, if they can't ship Linux, how can they ship a viable ARM based system? So, ASUS can't play in this ARM netbook or Smartbook game and all they can do is try to put it down in an attempt to limit it's value and growth with marketing speak.
So ASUS is out of the netbook/Smartbook game until their contract with Microsoft ends as far as I'm concerned. Windows is just not efficient enough to make a compelling small device OS.
just like the iPhone is useless because it doesn't run Windows, just like the iPod is useless because it doesn't run Windows and just like a LinuxPC is useless because it doesn't run Windows.
They could dump more into Windows Mobile but don't you think over $15 billion lost on that product in over 10 years is enough to show they suck at software development? I saw a guy the other day almost throw his phone and yes, it was Windows Mobile he was frustrated with. Companies who spend more on developing and less on marketing are doing say better. Again, the iPhone is an example.
Regarding Windows 7, it took them 5 years to spit out Vista and it amazed me that they could not scale it down to fit on netbooks or embedded devices. We are not talking about the 1990s here, we are talking about recently developed and shipped OS and they spit out a bloated mess. So messy they had to rush out a trimmed down version and change the name. And you _still_ think they can port that to ARM and run on the hardware expecting to ship? Gawd, Microsoft had to have the hardware vendors boost the hardware of the first netbooks so that XP would run and could be useful( without anti-virus software ).
They are behind the 8 ball on this one. This sector requires efficient software to get the performance, power, and price point for sub $300 devices and Microsoft is not technically capable of that and has never shown they could be. They are a marketing company first and foremost and just don't have the management skills to put out efficient, lowcost products. Moore's Law has finally failed them because people don't care so much about it. IMO.
you do not know Microsoft. They live and breath by Windows and the Windows APIs and that product is why they still exist. It would be a very small fraction of todays company that would promote the use of another OS instead of Windows. The Windows OS brings in most of their profits and the extents they go to protect that marketshare should be an indicator of how tied to it they are.
You'll see them making offers companies can't refuse and dumping billions into stopping the move to Linux before you'll see an MS Linux. They'll push Windows Mobile onto this platform or even port XP to ARM before there's an MS Linux or any MS nonWindows OS. IMO.
except with a 10" screen, you can be much smarter about what you run. ie, you can run OOo, Firefox, Acrobat, etc on the Smartbook and have them be useful because there's enough screen space to do so. These won't have to have crippled Microsoft operating systems either.
The Nokia n810 is based on ARM and I thought a new model was supposed to be based on TI's OMAP3530 chip. That Pandora device is based on that chip and it's gonna scream. The Cortex-A8 design really boosted performance and still keeps much of the low power usage features.
there should be no need for supporting "mobile broadband cards" with the universal 3G radio built into the Smartbooks. Unless they are misusing the term universal. The only difference between a netbook and a Smartbook is that the Smartbooks have the 3G radio builtin and the software to use it.
"Bing" huh, it reminds me of the sound of a ricochet and than makes me think that using Microsoft's search is going to return results that'll bounce you all over the place and most likely, only to MS partners. After all, the most effective ricochets are those in confined spaces. Maybe the internal name is really "Bing bing bing, bing, bing bing, bing." Followed by a bunch of "$" signs.
You forgot, he's probably got a motor/generator connected to the beanie propeller on top of his head. So, battery power isn't a problem. If there's not enough wind, he runs around in large circles.
a T-mobile customer said that they only charge extra for Texting and don't do anything to restrict ports on the TCP/IP stack. Sounds like AT&T are currently doing the same. Great and let's make sure they continue this way.
that's good to know because it sure sounded like it was more than just texting that they were splitting out and charging extra for. Thanks for clearing that up.
sure, they'll let you use port 80, 8080, and maybe even 443 but what cost is the freedom to use the bandwidth for what _you_ want to use it for? Didn't I see where T-Mobile's G1 _unlimited_ data plan bills you extra for Chat and IM and I would guess they block the standard VOIP port(s) too.
The Internet may be thought of by some as a "bunch of tubes" but these companies are carving it up so they control what you do on the "tube". Speed isn't the only thing that's important here.
and COM came after SOM so you were incorrect. BTW, why did you even bring that up, it didn't have anything to do with my comment on functional programming?
and the covered wagon predates the automobile. DDE does but who cares. OLE might but again, who cares, it's not CORBA-like. COM was a response to SOM which was the CORBA implementation IBM created. I saw and used SOM well before I saw Microsoft hit the market with COM so it sure looked like a reaction to me and that is pretty much how they operated to this day. Reactionary.
right you are, thanks. That 15W is the upper limit and it's probably the minimum they've tested which gives acceptable performance. They are losing money on the XP stuff and have to make sure the Windows 7 stuff doesn't bleed into the rest of the market where they make profits. Pure marketing games.
But you know, they've done these kinds of things for over a decade with Windows Mobile. I do think this stuff is pissing off OEMs but because of the marketing pay-back deals, they take it. That is getting thin though and ARM netbooks may bust this wide open.
Microsoft doesn't want OEMs making small laptops and paying next to nothing for the OS so they are setting these marketing limits. They are putting these marketing limits on the OEM's so that they'll have to pay full price for the full version of the OS on fully capable hardware.
The special thing here is that they needed to up the CPU power rating from 1GHz to 2GHz so that Windows 7 has acceptable performance. But they also want to try and ensure vendors don't ship Windows based netbooks with too much CPU and pitiful battery life. Bad press can wipe out any gains they've purchased over the past year.
ARM chips are going to set a standard for power usage and performance causing Microsoft to react with more marketing smoke and mirrors. Let's see how much of the market/public are going to fall for these games.
I don't quite get the big deal here since they are just setting the bar as high as needed to make sure Windows kinda runs on the hardware. Microsoft must be the one to set the bar because if it was anyone else, that bar would probably be too low to have any fun or use running Windows.
15 watts for the CPU is huge compared to what some of the ARM chips are doing while also doing HD video.
If anything, these specs for Windows netbooks is just another way to segment the winbook market to make sure a much higher price can be obtained for notebooks. After all, Microsoft can not have the netbook market grow up and start eating into its profits and people getting the idea that the OS is way too much of the cost of the device.
So, it's really all about marketing and little else. yawn.
that was just the technique used to get the "right" results. They'd have to go back more than 5 years today to pull the same stunt and will have to use different techniques. Maybe they'd use info from Microsofts "Get the Facts" campaign where it's not obvious that Microsoft gave sweetheart deals to migrate people from Linux or away from Linux.
People still think it was mostly the OLPCs fault they couldn't close any million unit deals even though they had dozens of MOU's. Little do they know that all those customers were published and visited by Microsoft and Intel before OLPC could get back to them with product. $10 million here, $20 million there and when OLPC came knocking with the MOU's in hand and a contract, the face looking through the little hole in the door was now asking, "Does it run Windows?". Gartner is a corporate tool and they've been in the business for years so they know how to spin data to look like what the customer wants. And I'd bet that sometimes, what one customer pays for is data other customers get. Just a hunch.
Slashdot Mirror
it is because their standard business methods are to use marketing tactics to win market share. dah. They leverage OEM deals to force OEMs to exclude non-Windows products, they leverage sales channels to exclude non-Windows products, they pay for "research" so often flawed and twisted it's obvious flaws are found on day one of the release, they have multi million dollar accounts to be used to keep large public accounts from bringing in OSS, they publish general FUD about the competition. I can go on and on about how they use marketing to be anti-competitive and how new technology companies have been terminated because the product didn't work ONLY on Windows.
So what they spend more on R&D, it almost never makes it out the door and if you've ever been to something like eTech, Microsoft Research presentations are like going to a 2nd graders show and tell. Sure the presentation is all wiz-bang but the content is lacking. Most of the rest of the technology companies are showing game changing technologies and Microsoft will show a touch panel. Anyways, if you'd read one of the leaked MS memo's from the 90s, you'll know that the MS R&D money is often used to keep some of the brightest educational minds out of the hands of the competition. They have a play-pen to work in so they don't do something for someone in the real world that Microsoft will have to kill off with marketing tricks.
That is why they are called a marketing company above being called a technology company. they can't even make a tiny handheld OS that worth a shit even after something like $100 billion were spent on it over the last 15 years. Windows CE/Mobile sucks while Apple in less than two years crushed them with a better product and with far far less people and dollars spent. And hey, Apple is making money off their handheld OS while Microsoft has been losing about $1 billion annually on Windows CE/Mobile for it's most of its entire life. They are NOT a technology company.
LoB
I might go with the idea that they "can't afford to do two entirely different architectures" but that bit about product diversification is bull. They boosted the hardware performance of the original EeePC to support Windows but instead of just selling that same hardware with Linux on it, they changed the hardware for the Linux models and then sold the Linux systems at more cost than the Windows versions. This too was probably a contract thing with Microsoft but the kicker is they allowed a contract requiring product diversification just to get funny money back from Microsoft. If it's that they have to ship Windows because of a Microsoft contract or can't ship ARM/Linux because of a Microsoft contract, it's the same thing. They are not in command of their own destiny by they their own greed and must sit out the ARM race. IMO.
LoB
probably under contract with Microsoft. You know, the fine print that keeps showing up after 20 years of company lawyers being surprised by Microsoft's tactics. The funny thing about lawyers, each one thinks _they_ are smarter than the other lawyers and keep signing deals with Microsoft thinking they're getting away with something.
It was obvious to me that they signed a deal with the devil when the next gen eEEPC's shipped. They used the 50/50 rule to say they ship 50% Linux systems and 50% Windows systems and that's why there were no Linux netbooks on store shelves. They boosted the hardware so Windows would run but then boosted the hardware more for the Linux versions and charged more for Linux. These are all signs of a "special" deal with Microsoft and they seem to be locked into this deal at the expense of the ARM systems. After all, if they can't ship Linux, how can they ship a viable ARM based system? So, ASUS can't play in this ARM netbook or Smartbook game and all they can do is try to put it down in an attempt to limit it's value and growth with marketing speak.
So ASUS is out of the netbook/Smartbook game until their contract with Microsoft ends as far as I'm concerned. Windows is just not efficient enough to make a compelling small device OS.
LoB
just like the iPhone is useless because it doesn't run Windows, just like the iPod is useless because it doesn't run Windows and just like a LinuxPC is useless because it doesn't run Windows.
They could dump more into Windows Mobile but don't you think over $15 billion lost on that product in over 10 years is enough to show they suck at software development? I saw a guy the other day almost throw his phone and yes, it was Windows Mobile he was frustrated with. Companies who spend more on developing and less on marketing are doing say better. Again, the iPhone is an example.
Regarding Windows 7, it took them 5 years to spit out Vista and it amazed me that they could not scale it down to fit on netbooks or embedded devices. We are not talking about the 1990s here, we are talking about recently developed and shipped OS and they spit out a bloated mess. So messy they had to rush out a trimmed down version and change the name. And you _still_ think they can port that to ARM and run on the hardware expecting to ship? Gawd, Microsoft had to have the hardware vendors boost the hardware of the first netbooks so that XP would run and could be useful( without anti-virus software ).
They are behind the 8 ball on this one. This sector requires efficient software to get the performance, power, and price point for sub $300 devices and Microsoft is not technically capable of that and has never shown they could be. They are a marketing company first and foremost and just don't have the management skills to put out efficient, lowcost products. Moore's Law has finally failed them because people don't care so much about it. IMO.
LoB
you do not know Microsoft. They live and breath by Windows and the Windows APIs and that product is why they still exist. It would be a very small fraction of todays company that would promote the use of another OS instead of Windows. The Windows OS brings in most of their profits and the extents they go to protect that marketshare should be an indicator of how tied to it they are.
You'll see them making offers companies can't refuse and dumping billions into stopping the move to Linux before you'll see an MS Linux. They'll push Windows Mobile onto this platform or even port XP to ARM before there's an MS Linux or any MS nonWindows OS. IMO.
LoB
except with a 10" screen, you can be much smarter about what you run. ie, you can run OOo, Firefox, Acrobat, etc on the Smartbook and have them be useful because there's enough screen space to do so. These won't have to have crippled Microsoft operating systems either.
LoB
The Nokia n810 is based on ARM and I thought a new model was supposed to be based on TI's OMAP3530 chip. That Pandora device is based on that chip and it's gonna scream. The Cortex-A8 design really boosted performance and still keeps much of the low power usage features.
LoB
there should be no need for supporting "mobile broadband cards" with the universal 3G radio built into the Smartbooks. Unless they are misusing the term universal. The only difference between a netbook and a Smartbook is that the Smartbooks have the 3G radio builtin and the software to use it.
I think Qualcomm has a hit here.
LoB
I thought it was Droop-a-long Cassidy. Right-eo on the MS is not-as-cool factor.
LoB
No kidding. Microsoft is so good at making effective marketing presentations, they must have been suckered in by their own bull sh|t. Haha.
LoB
"Bing" huh, it reminds me of the sound of a ricochet and than makes me think that using Microsoft's search is going to return results that'll bounce you all over the place and most likely, only to MS partners. After all, the most effective ricochets are those in confined spaces. Maybe the internal name is really "Bing bing bing, bing, bing bing, bing." Followed by a bunch of "$" signs.
LoB
You forgot, he's probably got a motor/generator connected to the beanie propeller on top of his head. So, battery power isn't a problem. If there's not enough wind, he runs around in large circles.
LoB
a T-mobile customer said that they only charge extra for Texting and don't do anything to restrict ports on the TCP/IP stack. Sounds like AT&T are currently doing the same. Great and let's make sure they continue this way.
LoB
that's good to know because it sure sounded like it was more than just texting that they were splitting out and charging extra for. Thanks for clearing that up.
LoB
sure, they'll let you use port 80, 8080, and maybe even 443 but what cost is the freedom to use the bandwidth for what _you_ want to use it for? Didn't I see where T-Mobile's G1 _unlimited_ data plan bills you extra for Chat and IM and I would guess they block the standard VOIP port(s) too.
The Internet may be thought of by some as a "bunch of tubes" but these companies are carving it up so they control what you do on the "tube". Speed isn't the only thing that's important here.
LoB
and COM came after SOM so you were incorrect. BTW, why did you even bring that up, it didn't have anything to do with my comment on functional programming?
LoB
and the covered wagon predates the automobile. DDE does but who cares. OLE might but again, who cares, it's not CORBA-like. COM was a response to SOM which was the CORBA implementation IBM created. I saw and used SOM well before I saw Microsoft hit the market with COM so it sure looked like a reaction to me and that is pretty much how they operated to this day. Reactionary.
LoB
And you can't read. The threading talk was between Windows and OS/2, not Linux. Try again.
LoB
I was not stating a definition of concurrent programming, just describing how I saw it.
CORBA 1.0 was released in 1991, OS/2's WorkplaceShell was the first commercial implementation of CORBA and Microsofts COM was released in 1993.
And I never stated Windows didn't support threads.
too much of your rebuttal is wrong. thanks for playing so poorly.
LoB
right you are, thanks. That 15W is the upper limit and it's probably the minimum they've tested which gives acceptable performance. They are losing money on the XP stuff and have to make sure the Windows 7 stuff doesn't bleed into the rest of the market where they make profits. Pure marketing games.
But you know, they've done these kinds of things for over a decade with Windows Mobile. I do think this stuff is pissing off OEMs but because of the marketing pay-back deals, they take it. That is getting thin though and ARM netbooks may bust this wide open.
LoB
Everyone who uses Microsoft software is only granted a "right to use". You do not have any ownership. Surprise!
LoB
Microsoft doesn't want OEMs making small laptops and paying next to nothing for the OS so they are setting these marketing limits. They are putting these marketing limits on the OEM's so that they'll have to pay full price for the full version of the OS on fully capable hardware.
The special thing here is that they needed to up the CPU power rating from 1GHz to 2GHz so that Windows 7 has acceptable performance. But they also want to try and ensure vendors don't ship Windows based netbooks with too much CPU and pitiful battery life. Bad press can wipe out any gains they've purchased over the past year.
ARM chips are going to set a standard for power usage and performance causing Microsoft to react with more marketing smoke and mirrors. Let's see how much of the market/public are going to fall for these games.
LoB
I don't quite get the big deal here since they are just setting the bar as high as needed to make sure Windows kinda runs on the hardware. Microsoft must be the one to set the bar because if it was anyone else, that bar would probably be too low to have any fun or use running Windows.
15 watts for the CPU is huge compared to what some of the ARM chips are doing while also doing HD video.
If anything, these specs for Windows netbooks is just another way to segment the winbook market to make sure a much higher price can be obtained for notebooks. After all, Microsoft can not have the netbook market grow up and start eating into its profits and people getting the idea that the OS is way too much of the cost of the device.
So, it's really all about marketing and little else. yawn.
LoB
and is probably considered an economy booster. Dumbass's.
LoB
that was just the technique used to get the "right" results. They'd have to go back more than 5 years today to pull the same stunt and will have to use different techniques. Maybe they'd use info from Microsofts "Get the Facts" campaign where it's not obvious that Microsoft gave sweetheart deals to migrate people from Linux or away from Linux.
People still think it was mostly the OLPCs fault they couldn't close any million unit deals even though they had dozens of MOU's. Little do they know that all those customers were published and visited by Microsoft and Intel before OLPC could get back to them with product. $10 million here, $20 million there and when OLPC came knocking with the MOU's in hand and a contract, the face looking through the little hole in the door was now asking, "Does it run Windows?". Gartner is a corporate tool and they've been in the business for years so they know how to spin data to look like what the customer wants. And I'd bet that sometimes, what one customer pays for is data other customers get. Just a hunch.
LoB