17 ms·

The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. If Ubuntu netbook edition was more user friendly and more windows-like I'm sure a lot

by jdjb 13y ago

The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. If Ubuntu netbook edition was more user friendly and more windows-like I'm sure a lot of people would've been very happy with a low specs machine that ran smooth enough for the kind of tasks you'd want to do on a <= 10'' screen.

discostrings 13y ago
> The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. I agree, and that's the tragedy of the situation. The first netbooks shipped with Linux, and Microsoft saw that as a threat, so they started licensing Windows at very low rates for netbooks. When the cost difference was minimal to ship Windows on netbooks, that's what vendors did, and the Windows netbooks dominated the market. Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. Netbooks then developed a reputation of being slow because most of the netbooks on the market were running Windows and were slow. The "netbook" name was already tarnished, making it difficult for the original Linux netbook idea to succeed.
- scholia 13y ago
  See my earlier answer here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 > The first netbooks shipped with Linux The first netbook shipped with Linux but the launch announcement for the Asus included both Windows XP and Linux. Windows sold better and was more profitable. > Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. No, the capabilities of netbooks were always limited. The netbook spec was upgraded twice to allow larger hard drives and screens etc. You could certainly argue that it wasn't upgraded enough, but then, it was limited to protect sales of laptops that were more profitable for Intel, Microsoft and the netbook OEMs. Netbooks had two main points: (1) provide a portable PC solution suitable for schools -- see Intel Classmate and, indeed, OLPC; (2) to provide a companion PC for existing PC users. It was nobody's idea to provide cut-price netbooks that would damage laptop sales. You might think it's a tragedy but it's just business.

by jdjb 13y ago

discostrings 13y ago

> The specs only need to be higher if you want to run modern Windows on it. I agree, and that's the tragedy of the situation. The first netbooks shipped with Linux, and Microsoft saw that as a threat, so they started licensing Windows at very low rates for netbooks. When the cost difference was minimal to ship Windows on netbooks, that's what vendors did, and the Windows netbooks dominated the market. Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. Netbooks then developed a reputation of being slow because most of the netbooks on the market were running Windows and were slow. The "netbook" name was already tarnished, making it difficult for the original Linux netbook idea to succeed.

scholia 13y ago
See my earlier answer here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272342 > The first netbooks shipped with Linux The first netbook shipped with Linux but the launch announcement for the Asus included both Windows XP and Linux. Windows sold better and was more profitable. > Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. No, the capabilities of netbooks were always limited. The netbook spec was upgraded twice to allow larger hard drives and screens etc. You could certainly argue that it wasn't upgraded enough, but then, it was limited to protect sales of laptops that were more profitable for Intel, Microsoft and the netbook OEMs. Netbooks had two main points: (1) provide a portable PC solution suitable for schools -- see Intel Classmate and, indeed, OLPC; (2) to provide a companion PC for existing PC users. It was nobody's idea to provide cut-price netbooks that would damage laptop sales. You might think it's a tragedy but it's just business.