3 ms·
To recap: Microsoft says that if a producer wants cheap window's licenses, they have to limit the specs on their umpcs (screen < 10.2 inches && hd < 80GB && ! t
by smanek 18y ago
To recap: Microsoft says that if a producer wants cheap window's licenses, they have to limit the specs on their umpcs (screen < 10.2 inches && hd < 80GB && ! touchscreen).
This is a good thing.
If a consumer wants, e.g., a umpc with a touchscreen, they will be forced to get a linux one. Getting more people to try linux (and giving the linux hardware an intrinsic edge), is probably one of the worst things microsoft can do to itself and one of the best it can do for linux.
- halo 18y agoI think that's an optimistic way of looking at it. Another way is that the people who create these devices will just limit their specs to be below Microsoft's requirements. I think this is amongst the first time MS has directly had to respond to Linux as a threat on the desktop though.
- qwph 18y agoIf I had a ULPC, and I really needed to run Windows software on it, I'd be tempted to try running Wine. http://www.winehq.org/ http://www.winehq.org/
- wanorris 18y agoPersonally, I'd just remote desktop into a stray Windows machine unless I absolutely had to have it onboard. I don't know that I'd want the added load from Wine on a lightweight Linux laptop. Those forthcoming 9" Linux Eees for $500 with 20GB SSDs look really enticing. Emacs + Firefox + a terminal is really all you need.
- rbanffy 18y agoSadly, the onky consequence that springs to mind is that there will be no devices above the spec. As much as the hardware makers may want to sell devices, they will want to maximize the number of units sold and the simplest way to do it is bundling windows. Again, it's Microsoft againt progress.
- olefoo 18y agoI hope you're right; but this does look like an attempt by an entrenched monopolist to limit competition by killing an emerging market. Too bad we don't enforce the laws that we have on that topic.
- etal 18y agoSo, two possible motivations come to mind: 1. This is part of the push for Vista over XP -- computers than can run Vista must run Vista, otherwise, XP is offered to avoid forfeiting the market to Linux. 2. This is a precursor to a campaign to cast Linux as a cheap operating system for low-quality computers. Hardware manufacturers can't resist offering these Ubiquitous Linux PCs, but if there's this extra incentive to keep the specs tight enough that these things can't quite be used as general-purpose computers, that can theoretically trap Linux for consumers in a sort of technological ghetto. Or, since the left hand and right hand appear to be barely on speaking terms inside Microsoft these days, one hand might really be earnestly pushing for #1, while the other hand cackled and bought in based on #2, and thus they agree.