8 ms·

FTA> "As form factors shrink power efficiency and battery life will increasingly drive market success." I hope it does work out like that, because cheap Linux-

FTA> "As form factors shrink power efficiency and battery life will increasingly drive market success." I hope it does work out like that, because cheap Linux-only hardware will only help Linux adoption! However I still think this is incorrect. You can already get a netbook with more than one useful day's battery life, which means you can always plug it in overnight. There are people who need more but that's a fairly small niche. x86 compatibility is a much bigger deal. The percentage of netbooks sold with Linux has dropped from 100% to somewhere between 33% and 4% (sources: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsexperience/archive/2009/04/03/windows-on-netbook-pcs-a-year-in-review.aspx http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsexperience/archive/2... and http://www.osnews.com/story/22587 http://www.osnews.com/story/22587 ). That's still not a bad number, especially if it's closer to 33%, but it does put ARM in the position of at best trying to win a market within a market. On top of that there's a question of how much further form factors are really going to shrink. Keyboards can only get so small, and we are already seeing a trend towards _bigger_ net books - not smaller. Finally, they are comparing against the old single processor atoms, not the new dual core atoms that are already available. That still leaves ARM with a potential advantage in the tablet market, where there is a lot less space for batteries and the software stack is better concealed. But the fate of the tablet market is still in doubt.

gvb 17y ago
You do need to be a little careful looking at netbook market share and size statistics because Microsoft decided they could not cede that market to linux. As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks." Thank you, Microsoft, for helping advance computer technology... I don't have to repeat this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1033708 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1033708
- timthorn 17y ago
  "As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks." How is selling their software at an attractive price to the market classed as distortion?
  - notauser 17y ago
    Because in my opinion it looks awfully close to dumping that is being cross-subsidized by their profitable laptop and desktop monopoly. "Microsoft charges local OEMs $32 for XP Home on netbooks, compared to around $65 for XP Home on desktops. Large OEMs are believed to pay much less." http://www.crn.com/software/212902058 http://www.crn.com/software/212902058
    - timthorn 17y ago
      Surely it is only dumping when selling below cost? I can't imagine that MS is losing money on this. Charging differing prices for different market segments is a reasonable business practice, and it could be argued that Linux is the OS that is distorting the market, seeing that there's no licensing fee at all involved. :)
      - notauser 17y ago
        With software it's really hard to say what below cost actually is. Amortized fixed cost, or just the variable cost? If you are talking about the latter then no, it's probably not dumping. If you are looking at the former I bet it's not so clear cut. WinXP development and all of the associated cost (such as the loss-making products like IE that help keep WinXP in it's market position) would have been pretty expensive - and the expenditure is still going on today thanks to things like security support and IE upgrades.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    "How is selling their software at an attractive price to the market classed as distortion?" Because it stifles competition? Besides that, this arguments ignores the other part: the one in that Microsoft restricts what kinds of netbooks can be built by modulating license price for the machines.
10ren 17y ago
Great metric for "good enough" batteries, of an overnight charge. But as devices shrink, the batteries also shrink. Also: if there is a non-trivial market for ARM netbooks, Microsoft will produce Windows for it (they probably already do, internally). They are highly sensitive to business risk.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Microsoft can't even release improvements of its main OS for a single architecture in a timely, predictable way. It's highly unlikely they can successfully maintain separate ports of Windows (and Office) for ARM. And then, ARM-based Windows notebooks will not run x86-based Windows software. Microsoft has Windows CE for ARM (and others), but it sucks really bad and is bears little relationship to desktop Windows apart from its name (and suckyness, but that is only my opinion).
  - ryanpetrich 17y ago
    Windows CE also has bastardized versions of the Win32 and .NET API's
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      Do you really believe one could port Office 2010 to them?
      - ryanpetrich 17y ago
        No, I don't think one could. They are the same API's though (with less features, a different implementation behind them, and more bugs)
  - timthorn 17y ago
    Don't forget that NT was originally multi-platform. There's nothing fundamental stopping Windows from running on different processors. The porting effort is mostly in the HAL. Office is another story and would need work, although if MS ever carry through on their original plans to convert all their apps to .NET compatibility should come for free.
xtho 17y ago
The problem with arm-based linux systems is that it's not that easy for casual hackers to cross-compile programs but this is essential when using linux. So "normal" users who don't develop for that device and don't have the proper tool chains set up are either limited to the packages the distributor provides or they have to compile the software on that underpowered device (which for older people has the advantage that it makes you somehow feel young again). The user experience of linux on an arm-based device cannot be compared with that on a x86-based device.
- wendroid 17y ago
  Agreed, the awful Linux build process and the world of #ifdef programming is anachronistic. Plan9 has cross platform debugging, let alone compiling (which is extremely trivial "conf=ARM9 mk") debugging : import remote /proc /proc echo stop > /proc/$apid/ctl # if you want it stopped acid $apid # the debugger where remote is plan9 running on one of the 11 supported architectures http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/acid http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/acid
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Plan9 had a whole lot of interesting things. Unfortunately for me, it has no Django, Emacs, Firefox and OpenOffice.
    - wendroid 17y ago
      And your computer has no Qemu or vmware player ? Can it run the vx32 sandbox version http://swtch.com/9vx/ http://swtch.com/9vx/ Or even just the userland tools as Unix programs http://swtch.com/plan9port/ http://swtch.com/plan9port/ hmm, odd those URIs aren't responding, which is unusual, give it a while
      - wendroid 17y ago
        I mailed Russ and he says no eta, they are probably in a cupboard in MIT
wendroid 17y ago
Assuming that the core market is netbooks (which I doubt), this is just a comparison video. James Hamilton is looking toward ARM and makes "the argument that the right measures of server efficiency was work done per dollar and work done per joule. Purchasing servers on single dimensional metrics like performance or power or even cost alone, makes no sense at all." http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/01/15/TheCaseForLowCostLowPowerServers.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/01/15/TheCaseForLowCos... http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/09/07/LinuxApacheOnARMProcessors.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/09/07/LinuxApacheOnARM... "James is a Vice President and Distinguished Engineer on the Amazon Web Services team where he is focused on infrastructure efficiency, reliability, and scaling."
sketerpot 17y ago
Batteries are heavy and cost money. If you make a computer more power-efficient, then you can use smaller, cheaper batteries and still have it be good enough. That can be a selling point.

gvb 17y ago

You do need to be a little careful looking at netbook market share and size statistics because Microsoft decided they could not cede that market to linux. As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks.

rbanffy 17y ago
"As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks." Thank you, Microsoft, for helping advance computer technology... I don't have to repeat this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1033708 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1033708
timthorn 17y ago
"As a result, they have distorted the market by licensing WinXP (and now Win7?) at an attractive price point and added laptop/netbook size and speed criteria to discourage low end netbooks." How is selling their software at an attractive price to the market classed as distortion?
- notauser 17y ago
  Because in my opinion it looks awfully close to dumping that is being cross-subsidized by their profitable laptop and desktop monopoly. "Microsoft charges local OEMs $32 for XP Home on netbooks, compared to around $65 for XP Home on desktops. Large OEMs are believed to pay much less." http://www.crn.com/software/212902058 http://www.crn.com/software/212902058
  - timthorn 17y ago
    Surely it is only dumping when selling below cost? I can't imagine that MS is losing money on this. Charging differing prices for different market segments is a reasonable business practice, and it could be argued that Linux is the OS that is distorting the market, seeing that there's no licensing fee at all involved. :)
    - notauser 17y ago
      With software it's really hard to say what below cost actually is. Amortized fixed cost, or just the variable cost? If you are talking about the latter then no, it's probably not dumping. If you are looking at the former I bet it's not so clear cut. WinXP development and all of the associated cost (such as the loss-making products like IE that help keep WinXP in it's market position) would have been pretty expensive - and the expenditure is still going on today thanks to things like security support and IE upgrades.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "How is selling their software at an attractive price to the market classed as distortion?" Because it stifles competition? Besides that, this arguments ignores the other part: the one in that Microsoft restricts what kinds of netbooks can be built by modulating license price for the machines.

10ren 17y ago

Great metric for "good enough" batteries, of an overnight charge. But as devices shrink, the batteries also shrink. Also: if there is a non-trivial market for ARM netbooks, Microsoft will produce Windows for it (they probably already do, internally). They are highly sensitive to business risk.

rbanffy 17y ago
Microsoft can't even release improvements of its main OS for a single architecture in a timely, predictable way. It's highly unlikely they can successfully maintain separate ports of Windows (and Office) for ARM. And then, ARM-based Windows notebooks will not run x86-based Windows software. Microsoft has Windows CE for ARM (and others), but it sucks really bad and is bears little relationship to desktop Windows apart from its name (and suckyness, but that is only my opinion).
- ryanpetrich 17y ago
  Windows CE also has bastardized versions of the Win32 and .NET API's
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Do you really believe one could port Office 2010 to them?
    - ryanpetrich 17y ago
      No, I don't think one could. They are the same API's though (with less features, a different implementation behind them, and more bugs)
- timthorn 17y ago
  Don't forget that NT was originally multi-platform. There's nothing fundamental stopping Windows from running on different processors. The porting effort is mostly in the HAL. Office is another story and would need work, although if MS ever carry through on their original plans to convert all their apps to .NET compatibility should come for free.

xtho 17y ago

The problem with arm-based linux systems is that it's not that easy for casual hackers to cross-compile programs but this is essential when using linux. So "normal" users who don't develop for that device and don't have the proper tool chains set up are either limited to the packages the distributor provides or they have to compile the software on that underpowered device (which for older people has the advantage that it makes you somehow feel young again). The user experience of linux on an arm-based device cannot be compared with that on a x86-based device.

wendroid 17y ago
Agreed, the awful Linux build process and the world of #ifdef programming is anachronistic. Plan9 has cross platform debugging, let alone compiling (which is extremely trivial "conf=ARM9 mk") debugging : import remote /proc /proc echo stop > /proc/$apid/ctl # if you want it stopped acid $apid # the debugger where remote is plan9 running on one of the 11 supported architectures http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/acid http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/acid
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Plan9 had a whole lot of interesting things. Unfortunately for me, it has no Django, Emacs, Firefox and OpenOffice.
  - wendroid 17y ago
    And your computer has no Qemu or vmware player ? Can it run the vx32 sandbox version http://swtch.com/9vx/ http://swtch.com/9vx/ Or even just the userland tools as Unix programs http://swtch.com/plan9port/ http://swtch.com/plan9port/ hmm, odd those URIs aren't responding, which is unusual, give it a while
    - wendroid 17y ago
      I mailed Russ and he says no eta, they are probably in a cupboard in MIT

wendroid 17y ago

Assuming that the core market is netbooks (which I doubt), this is just a comparison video. James Hamilton is looking toward ARM and makes "the argument that the right measures of server efficiency was work done per dollar and work done per joule. Purchasing servers on single dimensional metrics like performance or power or even cost alone, makes no sense at all." http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/01/15/TheCaseForLowCostLowPowerServers.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/01/15/TheCaseForLowCos... http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/09/07/LinuxApacheOnARMProcessors.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/09/07/LinuxApacheOnARM... "James is a Vice President and Distinguished Engineer on the Amazon Web Services team where he is focused on infrastructure efficiency, reliability, and scaling."

sketerpot 17y ago

Batteries are heavy and cost money. If you make a computer more power-efficient, then you can use smaller, cheaper batteries and still have it be good enough. That can be a selling point.