Once people discover the limitations after buying the device, word of mouth will not be positive. How would you feel knowing that "good deal" netbook is actually costing you $75 (or some amount) more than you thought because of the OS upgrade required.
This is a PR disaster waiting to happen.
Those netbooks will either get returned for ones with the full version of Win 7, or exchanged for a Linux version.
This is "Vista Capable" all over again. Pure marketing poison.
Windows XP to compete with Win 7 in netbook market
Summary
The aging Windows XP will continue to be offered for netbooks even after Microsoft starts selling Windows 7 for the inexpensive sub-notebooks, a Microsoft executive has revealed.
Topics
Microsoft will continue to offer Windows XP for netbooks even after it starts selling Windows 7 for the inexpensive subnotebooks, a company executive has revealed.
Neil Holloway, Microsoft International's vice president of business strategy, told ZDNet UK on Thursday that the company expected Windows 7 to be more popular than XP. However, Microsoft will ultimately decide which operating system it will offer for netbooks depending on customer preference, he said.
"Let's see what the market does," Holloway said at Microsoft's Growth and Innovation Day in Brussels. "As we introduce Windows 7 for netbooks, the availability of XP will be less and less. I think, on this one, the market will decide on Windows 7."
The unanticipated success of the netbook market over the past year-and-a-half has forced Microsoft to repeatedly postpone the retirement of Windows XP, mainly because its newer Vista operating system was too processor-hungry to run on the devices.
Holloway's comments suggest that Microsoft will delay the demise of XP even longer. That will effectively bring the ageing operating system into competition with the upcoming Windows 7 Starter Edition, which is aimed explicitly at netbooks and is expected to arrive around the end of 2009 or beginning of 2010.
Although Windows 7 is built on the same underlying architecture as Windows Vista, Microsoft has repeatedly stated that the upcoming operating system is more lightweight than Vista and therefore more suited to netbook use.
Last month, Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer said people who buy a netbook with the Starter Edition of Windows 7 will be offered the opportunity to trade up to a more fully featured version of that operating system. Holloway confirmed that this would happen.
"You could have a low-end [Windows 7] netbook or a high-end netbook," Holloway said. "The question is, do you have reduced Windows 7, or the next level up, with more functionality?"
Holloway compared it to the situation with Vista: people will be able to select the version of Windows 7 that suits them, in the same way they can choose the Home Basic edition of Vista rather than the Ultimate edition, depending on their computing need. He added, however, that the offer of a choice of versions of Windows 7 will depend on the outcome of Microsoft's licensing negotiations with netbook manufacturers.
The first netbook — the seven-inch Asus Eee PC — was introduced in 2007, and it used a Linux-based operating system. A year ago, Microsoft announced a deal with Asus to provide netbooks running XP at the CeBIT trade show. Since then, Windows XP has become the dominant operating system in the broader netbook market.
"When [netbooks] first started they were 100 percent Linux. We didn't have an operating system or pricing," Holloway said. "These days we are tracking 90 percent-plus running on Windows. If we are late to the party but still end up with that market share after 12 months, then we are not doing too badly."
Also on Thursday, Holloway said Microsoft was in talks with mobile operators to see Windows 7 bundled with mobile-broadband-enabled netbooks.
This article was originally posted on ZDNet.co.uk.
Just In
processor power, or number of applications running. The same price as they are now charging for XP.
The same price as they are now charging for XP.
No, it needs to be cheaper than that, and not just on the version for netbooks.
I like Windows 7, but if Microsoft tries to shaft us on the price, I will skip it, just like I have skipped Vista.
No, it needs to be cheaper than that, and not just on the version for netbooks.
I like Windows 7, but if Microsoft tries to shaft us on the price, I will skip it, just like I have skipped Vista.
Makes sense. They will gain a profit either way by having Windows on there so why not go for both? I'm hoping more people will choose Windows 7 for its improvements but if someone does go with XP its one more sale for Microsoft. Its a win-win situation.
Keep giving the anti-MSFT trolls hell. You just keep telling the truth, and they think it's hell!
I'm no anti-MSFT troll, but I'm sure not a MSFT fanboy either after 4 years of adminning an Exchange server and Active Directory. The things that should be free are expensive 3rd party apps, and the things that should work are "known issues" that the MS product team has "decided aren't worth fixing."
It's good to know that, if push came to shove, I could code my own fix for an open source app. So my ears are very open for alternatives to closed-source apps that give me gray hair at age 22.
It's good to know that, if push came to shove, I could code my own fix for an open source app. So my ears are very open for alternatives to closed-source apps that give me gray hair at age 22.
We can fix the World's problem is by reopening net-neutrality to the UAE , UK , China and Japan and South Korea ; as people become more fun and less of being more or less.
He's most likely just drank his first beer.
The sort of "Netbook" you need for Windows 7 to be happy
is still 1GB RAM, preferably 2, and a spinning platter
harddrive, as the cheaper SSD drives are neither big
enough or fast enough on write performance to be of any
use to a windows based OS. Even XP will stutter and run
crappy on a 7GB SSD.
To me this just makes it a small laptop, not a netbook.
The netbook is lightweight and has little grunt becasue it
should leverage the "Net" and offload the heavy lifting and
bulk storage to a server or main desktop.
You do not need to run MS Office 2007 on your netbook,
you just need to RDP to your desktop machine or get onto
your corporate citrix farm.
Windows 7 is stil too screen realestate hungry to work on a
small 7-9 inch display, so really needs a full 900 or more
pixels in height.
Linux for me can still be made smaller in footprint, less
swappy to reduce writes to disk, can be installed with fewer
services eating CPU cycles and RAM, and all of the linux
GUI shells can be easily customised to use small screens
better. Also tunneling X11 is a free way to get apps
running from your home desktop to display on your local
screen. The best thing about the netooks hainvg to be fast enough to
run XP and Win7, it these make fantastic Linux machines, even if they
only just make the grade for Windows.
is still 1GB RAM, preferably 2, and a spinning platter
harddrive, as the cheaper SSD drives are neither big
enough or fast enough on write performance to be of any
use to a windows based OS. Even XP will stutter and run
crappy on a 7GB SSD.
To me this just makes it a small laptop, not a netbook.
The netbook is lightweight and has little grunt becasue it
should leverage the "Net" and offload the heavy lifting and
bulk storage to a server or main desktop.
You do not need to run MS Office 2007 on your netbook,
you just need to RDP to your desktop machine or get onto
your corporate citrix farm.
Windows 7 is stil too screen realestate hungry to work on a
small 7-9 inch display, so really needs a full 900 or more
pixels in height.
Linux for me can still be made smaller in footprint, less
swappy to reduce writes to disk, can be installed with fewer
services eating CPU cycles and RAM, and all of the linux
GUI shells can be easily customised to use small screens
better. Also tunneling X11 is a free way to get apps
running from your home desktop to display on your local
screen. The best thing about the netooks hainvg to be fast enough to
run XP and Win7, it these make fantastic Linux machines, even if they
only just make the grade for Windows.
I have a netbook running XP on a 2GB SSD. Windows 7 requires a 6GB install.
Guess which OS I'll be using?
Guess which OS I'll be using?
I think the executive is mistaken when he predicts that Windows 7 will win out over XP.
This is what will be available:
Full-featured XP for $10 or so licensing fee.
Crippled Windows 7 Starter for $10 or so licensing fee.
Full-featured Windows 7 Home Premium for $50+ licensing fee.
Given that a high proportion of netbook buyers are looking for low cost and high value, I bet most will stick with XP.
This is what will be available:
Full-featured XP for $10 or so licensing fee.
Crippled Windows 7 Starter for $10 or so licensing fee.
Full-featured Windows 7 Home Premium for $50+ licensing fee.
Given that a high proportion of netbook buyers are looking for low cost and high value, I bet most will stick with XP.
I had been a Windows user since 1994. I started out on Win 3.1, went to Win 95, then onto Win 98, Win ME, Win 2k, & WinXP. I had become very comfortable with the Windows UI, but was always frustrated with Windows. To me, Windows kept me wishing for something that was better. Something that wasn't your run of the mill OS.
Win 3.1 was limited. Win 95 demanded that you upgrade to a better, more expensive machine. Win 98 was no different than Win 95. Win ME was a complete flop (I vowed I would never go back to crash vile after Win ME). Win 2k was stable but was limited also. WinXP was riddled with surcurity issues.
I got fed up with Windows. Microsoft brought out OS's that did nothing until you paid for a full version of any software that shipped with it. They forced you to use buggy drivers, and wait for updates. Anyone who knew anything about Windows could walk right into a persons PC, rummage around and have free reign with the personal files on the HD. What's more, Window's thought this to be acceptable? Excuse me? "Oh just wait for our Service Pack 2 to start shipping. This will eliminate all security issues." Why didn't they make it right in the first place?
Another monumental blunder for Windows is the way it recognises a device that the user plugs in. My favourite though was the way Windows would recognise that the user plugged a simple USB thumb drive into a free USB port. Windows would say, "I've found a new device. Please wait while I install the drivers for this device." The user would wait for Windows to do its bit, and 50% of the time, Windows would load the correct drivers and the user would be happy. However, lets say the user took the USB thumb drive out of the USB port and went away. A few hours have now passed, and the user returned to the PC with the need to use the USB thumb drive. The user puts the USB thumb drive into a USB port, however this time the user puts the USB thumb drive into a different USB port on the PC. Now one would expect that since Windows had loaded the correct drivers for the USB thumb drive only hours earlier that it would happily accept the USB thumb drive, and all would be well. But no, since the USB thumb drive was inserted into a different USB port, Windows goes through the process of loading drivers for the USB thumb again. Why?
Windows is an OS that the majority of the world has learnt to live with. It's like a person being given a choice between eating a chefs meal or canned dog food and choosing the canned dog food - "Hey, this isn't that bad. I can learn to live with it". And the sad thing is that for the people who have chosen Windows as an OS will never venture out to find something better.
Take Windows Vista for example. It was rubbish when it first came out, it was engineered by idiots, and it's rubbish now. Windows Vista is a terrible OS that never worked. If you've noticed all new hardware, peripherals, and software all have a sticker pasted to them stating, 'Works with Windows Vista'. The OS was made to drive sales on everything computer related. Windows Vista was a marketing tool to get people to open up their wallets and spend money. Do you really think Bill Gates got to where he is by not being devious? He saw that the computer would be a valuable commodity in the years to come. He also saw a business opportunity to make billions, and he did just that. In conjunction with all the manufacturers and corporations, Vista capitalized on making people having to buy faster computers, more RAM, bigger HD's, faster video cards ect. Wouldn't Microsoft want to clear their name of all the previous OS blunders? Nope - and for the simple reason of - 'If we build and ship an OS that causes issues, ship software that is only trial versions, force hardware manufactures to make drivers instead of us, offer nothing but a clock, paint program and calculator, we will make money hand over fist'.
It's no accident that Windows is a rubbish OS. It's too profitable to have an OS that is terrible, and then offer the hope to customers that a newer, better OS will solve all their issues with the current OS.
I saw this plan of Microsoft in plain view about 2 years ago when I had a laptop replaced by DELL under warranty. When I received my new laptop, it no longer came with WinXP because DELL was not shipping WinXP any more, they were shipping Windows Vista. My original laptop only came with 512 RAM. Microsoft recommended a minimum of 1 GB of RAM. In good faith, I believed that DELL would boost my RAM to 1 GB so I could enjoy all the features of Windows Vista. Instead, they shipped my laptop with 512 RAM, and a basic Intel video card. The version of Vista that was shipped was Vista Basic. Not only did the OS run terribly slow, it did nothing because it was the Basic version. Despite the fact that the laptop had the all new Intel Core 2 Duo running at 1.6 Ghz, the computer was painfully slow. DELL refused to add more RAM, and after many phone calls later, I decided to turn away from Windows. My question was this. "Why should I be forced to pay more money to have Windows Vista run smoothly on my computer?" It bothered me to such an extent that I chose to switch OS's.
I searched around and found the light. I turned to Ubuntu Linux. The OS is a Unix based Kernel, and runs like an OS should. It just works, and that's what I wanted. Best of all, it's FREE. That's right, free. The OS resembles a look and feel like that of MAC OS X. It's very graphically pleasing to the eyes, and functions without fault. The majority of people think lines of text and a terminal prompt when they hear Linux. Not so. Linux is a very powerful OS that can knock the pants off of Windows.
As I write this now, I'm on a new Dell Laptop made for Windows, but am using Ubuntu Linux. It's beautiful really. I'll never go back to Windows again. There's no need. I can do everything I did in Windows on my Linux laptop. Linux is no longer restricted to geeks in thick reading glasses, no. Linux is powerful, and fully optioned beyond anything you could imagine. And did I mention that it's free?
Spread the word. Linux is and always will be better than the terrible OS Windows. Why settle for second place when you can be in first place with Linux.
Win 3.1 was limited. Win 95 demanded that you upgrade to a better, more expensive machine. Win 98 was no different than Win 95. Win ME was a complete flop (I vowed I would never go back to crash vile after Win ME). Win 2k was stable but was limited also. WinXP was riddled with surcurity issues.
I got fed up with Windows. Microsoft brought out OS's that did nothing until you paid for a full version of any software that shipped with it. They forced you to use buggy drivers, and wait for updates. Anyone who knew anything about Windows could walk right into a persons PC, rummage around and have free reign with the personal files on the HD. What's more, Window's thought this to be acceptable? Excuse me? "Oh just wait for our Service Pack 2 to start shipping. This will eliminate all security issues." Why didn't they make it right in the first place?
Another monumental blunder for Windows is the way it recognises a device that the user plugs in. My favourite though was the way Windows would recognise that the user plugged a simple USB thumb drive into a free USB port. Windows would say, "I've found a new device. Please wait while I install the drivers for this device." The user would wait for Windows to do its bit, and 50% of the time, Windows would load the correct drivers and the user would be happy. However, lets say the user took the USB thumb drive out of the USB port and went away. A few hours have now passed, and the user returned to the PC with the need to use the USB thumb drive. The user puts the USB thumb drive into a USB port, however this time the user puts the USB thumb drive into a different USB port on the PC. Now one would expect that since Windows had loaded the correct drivers for the USB thumb drive only hours earlier that it would happily accept the USB thumb drive, and all would be well. But no, since the USB thumb drive was inserted into a different USB port, Windows goes through the process of loading drivers for the USB thumb again. Why?
Windows is an OS that the majority of the world has learnt to live with. It's like a person being given a choice between eating a chefs meal or canned dog food and choosing the canned dog food - "Hey, this isn't that bad. I can learn to live with it". And the sad thing is that for the people who have chosen Windows as an OS will never venture out to find something better.
Take Windows Vista for example. It was rubbish when it first came out, it was engineered by idiots, and it's rubbish now. Windows Vista is a terrible OS that never worked. If you've noticed all new hardware, peripherals, and software all have a sticker pasted to them stating, 'Works with Windows Vista'. The OS was made to drive sales on everything computer related. Windows Vista was a marketing tool to get people to open up their wallets and spend money. Do you really think Bill Gates got to where he is by not being devious? He saw that the computer would be a valuable commodity in the years to come. He also saw a business opportunity to make billions, and he did just that. In conjunction with all the manufacturers and corporations, Vista capitalized on making people having to buy faster computers, more RAM, bigger HD's, faster video cards ect. Wouldn't Microsoft want to clear their name of all the previous OS blunders? Nope - and for the simple reason of - 'If we build and ship an OS that causes issues, ship software that is only trial versions, force hardware manufactures to make drivers instead of us, offer nothing but a clock, paint program and calculator, we will make money hand over fist'.
It's no accident that Windows is a rubbish OS. It's too profitable to have an OS that is terrible, and then offer the hope to customers that a newer, better OS will solve all their issues with the current OS.
I saw this plan of Microsoft in plain view about 2 years ago when I had a laptop replaced by DELL under warranty. When I received my new laptop, it no longer came with WinXP because DELL was not shipping WinXP any more, they were shipping Windows Vista. My original laptop only came with 512 RAM. Microsoft recommended a minimum of 1 GB of RAM. In good faith, I believed that DELL would boost my RAM to 1 GB so I could enjoy all the features of Windows Vista. Instead, they shipped my laptop with 512 RAM, and a basic Intel video card. The version of Vista that was shipped was Vista Basic. Not only did the OS run terribly slow, it did nothing because it was the Basic version. Despite the fact that the laptop had the all new Intel Core 2 Duo running at 1.6 Ghz, the computer was painfully slow. DELL refused to add more RAM, and after many phone calls later, I decided to turn away from Windows. My question was this. "Why should I be forced to pay more money to have Windows Vista run smoothly on my computer?" It bothered me to such an extent that I chose to switch OS's.
I searched around and found the light. I turned to Ubuntu Linux. The OS is a Unix based Kernel, and runs like an OS should. It just works, and that's what I wanted. Best of all, it's FREE. That's right, free. The OS resembles a look and feel like that of MAC OS X. It's very graphically pleasing to the eyes, and functions without fault. The majority of people think lines of text and a terminal prompt when they hear Linux. Not so. Linux is a very powerful OS that can knock the pants off of Windows.
As I write this now, I'm on a new Dell Laptop made for Windows, but am using Ubuntu Linux. It's beautiful really. I'll never go back to Windows again. There's no need. I can do everything I did in Windows on my Linux laptop. Linux is no longer restricted to geeks in thick reading glasses, no. Linux is powerful, and fully optioned beyond anything you could imagine. And did I mention that it's free?
Spread the word. Linux is and always will be better than the terrible OS Windows. Why settle for second place when you can be in first place with Linux.
What a well thought out and clear post. I agree with you on almost every point.
I too was with MS DOS and Windows back from the start. Firstly it bugged me that Microsoft kept getting little things wrong; like promising the moon with every new release and I was left wondering just how much they started to believe their own hype. Then it annoyed the hell that they couldn't get the simple things right.
Back in the dark ages with MS-DOS Microsoft couldnt even (or couldn't be bothered) supply an undelete utility.
Then when MS-DOS 6.22 came along they simply used Symantec's utility. Same with defrag and anti-vir.
for a time I was happy with Win3.1 running under DR DOS 6.0 (DR DOS was infinately superior to anything Microsoft sold) until all of a sudden after Windows went to version 3.11, and for an inexplicable reason Windows wouldn't work under DR DOS. strange that, NOT!
Now I see in Win7, the babboons at Microsoft who care so little about users, have let the flaw whereby a renamed extension (as in *.txt.exe) will cause the same problems we've had since Win95. Don't they learn? Don't they care?
Anyway back when the Hardy Herron release of Ubuntu came along I set up a dual boot system and was amazed at how good an OS can be. When all is said and done, Windows is ONLY an OS. Anything meaningful you want to do on a computer happens above the level of the OS. But when an OS is slow, a resource hog, buggy, then it affects every application.
Under Ubuntu I could get things done, swap between multiple applications with ridiculous ease. As you know GIMP, Open Office, Pigeon, Firefox etc under Ubuntu fly.
Once WUBI came out, the dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu became even easier.
Vista died a long time ago, it's just that the wingnuts at Redmond refuse to believe it. Win 7 is still hyped as the saviour from everything from Swine Flu to Global Warming and lots of people will happily accept again (for the 4th, 5th, 65th time.....) that this latest release fixes everything before it. It doesn't.
My laptop is a few years old, and came with an OEM version of Vista Professional. I used it for a year and a half before frustation finally led me to blow ait away and replace it with a locked down solid version of XP Pro SP3. while not top of the line (dual core 1.73GHZ 2GB RAM) a limping Vista system screams like a raped ape under XP. Or Ubuntu.
My advice to all Windows users is to dual boot with Ubuntu. Use it for even just a week or so, and compare it to Windows. To call Aero eye-candy after seeing what Compiz fusion can do is rather funny.
Win7 will largely fail for some of the same reasons Vista did. The 32 bit version doesn't do any more than Win XP did and in the current financial melt down not too many businesses can justify the expense.
I too was with MS DOS and Windows back from the start. Firstly it bugged me that Microsoft kept getting little things wrong; like promising the moon with every new release and I was left wondering just how much they started to believe their own hype. Then it annoyed the hell that they couldn't get the simple things right.
Back in the dark ages with MS-DOS Microsoft couldnt even (or couldn't be bothered) supply an undelete utility.
Then when MS-DOS 6.22 came along they simply used Symantec's utility. Same with defrag and anti-vir.
for a time I was happy with Win3.1 running under DR DOS 6.0 (DR DOS was infinately superior to anything Microsoft sold) until all of a sudden after Windows went to version 3.11, and for an inexplicable reason Windows wouldn't work under DR DOS. strange that, NOT!
Now I see in Win7, the babboons at Microsoft who care so little about users, have let the flaw whereby a renamed extension (as in *.txt.exe) will cause the same problems we've had since Win95. Don't they learn? Don't they care?
Anyway back when the Hardy Herron release of Ubuntu came along I set up a dual boot system and was amazed at how good an OS can be. When all is said and done, Windows is ONLY an OS. Anything meaningful you want to do on a computer happens above the level of the OS. But when an OS is slow, a resource hog, buggy, then it affects every application.
Under Ubuntu I could get things done, swap between multiple applications with ridiculous ease. As you know GIMP, Open Office, Pigeon, Firefox etc under Ubuntu fly.
Once WUBI came out, the dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu became even easier.
Vista died a long time ago, it's just that the wingnuts at Redmond refuse to believe it. Win 7 is still hyped as the saviour from everything from Swine Flu to Global Warming and lots of people will happily accept again (for the 4th, 5th, 65th time.....) that this latest release fixes everything before it. It doesn't.
My laptop is a few years old, and came with an OEM version of Vista Professional. I used it for a year and a half before frustation finally led me to blow ait away and replace it with a locked down solid version of XP Pro SP3. while not top of the line (dual core 1.73GHZ 2GB RAM) a limping Vista system screams like a raped ape under XP. Or Ubuntu.
My advice to all Windows users is to dual boot with Ubuntu. Use it for even just a week or so, and compare it to Windows. To call Aero eye-candy after seeing what Compiz fusion can do is rather funny.
Win7 will largely fail for some of the same reasons Vista did. The 32 bit version doesn't do any more than Win XP did and in the current financial melt down not too many businesses can justify the expense.
Microsoft is desperate to get rid of XP, so why is it going to keep selling it in laptops? We can make a pretty good guess by looking at what would happen if it didn't.
With no XP, people looking to buy a netbook would be faced with two bad choices: cheap but crippled Starter, or full-featured but expensive Home Premium.
That wouldn't matter except there is a third option: Linux. Now Microsoft defenders claim Linux is a flop on netbooks. But look at the facts. For a decade desktop Linux was stuck at 1 or 2% market share. Now along comes netbooks, the hot new market, and even after the XP counter-attack Linux still has around 30%.
If Microsoft got rid of XP on netbooks then Linux's market share would go even higher, so the company has been forced to keep selling it.
Oh, and what is going to happen when sub-$200 ARM netbooks come out later this year? Windows doesn't even run on ARM.
With no XP, people looking to buy a netbook would be faced with two bad choices: cheap but crippled Starter, or full-featured but expensive Home Premium.
That wouldn't matter except there is a third option: Linux. Now Microsoft defenders claim Linux is a flop on netbooks. But look at the facts. For a decade desktop Linux was stuck at 1 or 2% market share. Now along comes netbooks, the hot new market, and even after the XP counter-attack Linux still has around 30%.
If Microsoft got rid of XP on netbooks then Linux's market share would go even higher, so the company has been forced to keep selling it.
Oh, and what is going to happen when sub-$200 ARM netbooks come out later this year? Windows doesn't even run on ARM.
Windows XP and Win 7 will have to compete with Linux...a much more responsive OS and still full featured. Slack on the net book is very responsive and nimble, overall a more gratifying experience than Win XP.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
