Microsoft's XP for low-cost PCs defines some boundaries
Filed under: Laptops
Relevant Posts
- Dell raises cost of Windows XP downgrade option to $150 (30 days ago - 130 Comments)
- Windows 7 build 7000 already outperforming Vista and XP in "real-world" tasks (5 days ago - 257 Comments)
- Microsoft extends Windows XP deliveries to May 30, 2009 (17 days ago - 108 Comments)
- Dell Inspiron Mini 12 gets more netbook-y with Ubuntu, XP options (23 days ago - 41 Comments)
- Reader meetup update: 'Fallout 3' bundles, Nokia N-Gage / Ovi, Make, and more! (28 days ago - 427 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
IT-Accountant @ May 10th 2008 1:13PM
Why do I have the feeling that these restrictions will be easily hacked?
just sayin, if I can make my homebrew AMD gaming desktop run OS X leopard, it shouldn't be all that difficult to make it run a slightly hamstrung version of XP.
dave @ May 10th 2008 1:21PM
It's probably a licensing limitation, not a software limit. e.g. MS will only sell under this license to OEMs if they meet the requirements.
Smart move, IMO. Wonder if they're going to ship a more stripped down SKU of the OS.
steve @ May 10th 2008 2:29PM
@IT Accountant.
AMD gaming desktop run OS X leopard
LOL I don't know where to begin here.
Well, firstly if you were going for a gaming desktop you want an c2d, but that mistake is cancelled out by the fact that you plan on useing OS X for games.
Kurian @ May 10th 2008 2:34PM
I wonder if they reduced the maximum number of simultaneous open windows from 3 to 2 from the other low cost scam edition.
Josh Warner @ May 11th 2008 12:56AM
@dave
Are you kidding? This is an incredibly boneheaded move. These ultra-low cost, small PCs are going to blaze past those system specs within half a year. Vista won't run well until the proc is 3x that fast, there is 3x that amount of ram, and a power hungry GPU in the mix as well, so in between those two levels of hardware they have given Linux a complete monopoly.
Giving your competition a monopoly is, to quote Douglas Adams, 'widely regarded as a bad move.' Microsoft has just shot themselves in the foot, repeatedly. There will be two versions of these computers - the barebones XP version which barely squeaks under the max specs, and the much better equipped Linux version(s). XP may be slightly cheaper, but it's relegated to the bottom end. We are seeing this already with the eee 900 (Linux version has larger HD and slightly higher price).
Case in point: Intel's Atom will be, at release, available up to 1.6 GHz which is 60% above MS's max spec. This is freely available to Linux, but the bottom-of-the-barrel 1 GHz proc will have to be used in an XP model. Good luck explaining how XP is the 'more advanced' OS...
I would like to see Linux succeed as much as anybody, but this is almost unbelievable. If true, Microsoft has given the GNU/Linux community a huge opportunity - don't squander it!
Laughing Man @ May 11th 2008 4:51PM
AMD runs games great, so don't even start that bull. Gaming is mostly on your GPU, not your CPU. Granted the Core 2 do provide a, on average 7% increase in performance, it is never enough to truly matter.
You are completely right about OS X.
King Kang @ May 10th 2008 1:15PM
This is sick.
MaGiXX @ May 10th 2008 1:24PM
Just load TinyXP on.
bob e @ May 10th 2008 1:26PM
$32, nice price!
stefan @ May 10th 2008 2:07PM
Except that in developing nations 26$ may be a weeks salary or more... whereas in the first world we work one or two hours for that.
They should at least use the Big-Mac-Index for pricing... or make it uniform.
sinjinn @ May 10th 2008 2:16PM
or... as is the case in the real world , anyone who wants this will buy the linux version and then install thier own (?) copy of of full xp.
WisdomWolf @ May 10th 2008 1:36PM
Wait, isn't there supposed to be a touchscreen version of the eee coming out?
Craig @ May 10th 2008 1:45PM
That horse has left the barn, guys.
Jon Doe. @ May 10th 2008 2:01PM
sorry but 1Ghz is going to be a deal breaker for most OEM's. The rest is fine and hell we can upgrade RAM, HD in most cases. but 1GHz....maybe 1.5GHz but not 1.
Weeze-dog @ May 10th 2008 2:33PM
It does say 1GHz, and not 1.0GHz, I read that to be 1.0-1.9GHz. After all, Intel's CPU for ultra low cost PC's runs at 1.6GHz as well as VIA's.
Eli @ May 10th 2008 11:36PM
I think it's great that the limit is set at 1ghz. As motivation to the hardware company to keep costs, heat, and power consumption down. That's what's important in these computers, not the ability to play brand new games or to run five demanding applications at once.
conor @ May 10th 2008 2:06PM
i can see this on a desktop if they package it with 1 gig in it and 2 gig on the side with no moniter on it. loopholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
packetsniffer @ May 10th 2008 4:23PM
Are you like 12? Just curious.
meist3r @ May 10th 2008 2:15PM
It's not like Microsoft really cares about developing countries or small PCs. All they try to achieve with this is to stop Linux from gaining even more ground. 32$ is good for WinXP but it's still 32 bucks more than any Linux distro. I don't really know if Win XP with a Gig of RAM and 1 Ghz is such a pleasure. The need for hardware intense tasks on mobile platforms is not that big yet and I really wonder what I should use Windows for if Linux can do everything comparably well (and with no additional cost). They don't give you server software or office for that price do they?
9bit @ May 10th 2008 2:25PM
I'm currectly running XP on a laptop with 128 MB of RAM and a 700 MHz PIII. It works just fine, with some slowdown at changing windows when I have a lot running. XP will run perfectly with 1 GB of RAM and 1 GHz processor, especially if it's a core 2 instead of a PIII.
LJKelley @ May 10th 2008 2:56PM
When XP first came out computers were around 1Ghz and maybe 256MB Ram for a decent price and they do well. I know alot of people that have 512MB Ram. 1GB and a newer better 1Ghz processor will do just fine and I doubt you will do intense gaming on your 10in screen, its a not a computer its an Ultra Portable web machine.
meist3r @ May 10th 2008 2:58PM
@9bit: And hows multimedia performance? DVDs and such? My big concern with WinXP is that for some applications it might be pretty good but you still have a huge installation that you can barely shrink. But anyways I've sworn to myself never to buy a Microsoft OS (or proprietary OS in general for that matter) again and so maybe this whole discussion is futile. But I'm always open to hear some good arguments to broaden my horizon.
Mark @ May 10th 2008 3:13PM
I'll be honest - DVD playback is not a problem a PIII 550mHz that I have still manages to play DVDs no lag. It dies with DivX/XviD/H264 though.
There's a bunch of stuff you can cut out of WinXP to shrink it - get rid of all of the themes but one, remove movie maker, take out all the pretty little screen savers - a bunch of stuff that nice to have, but unnecessary.
Jon Doe. @ May 10th 2008 4:26PM
9bit,
I hate to break this to you but running a system with 128MB of RAM you are KILLING system performance right out of the gate by causing the OS to thrash the swap disk before you even start to run any apps. Windows XP pared down to the most basic of services running takes up about 95MB of RAM. That is TWEAKED and using very customized services that no OEM would do. A fresh install with default services running w/ SP3 will eat just over 128MB of RAM. Add AV on that and you are nailing your swap file big time.
mabhatter @ May 11th 2008 9:03PM
it's $20 a copy Xandros doesn't get times a million units.... $20 million dollars to a linux vendor is a lot of money, that's a lot of good to the OSS base code that could be done. That's what Microsoft is really fighting.
Billions of dollars per month are poured into making Microsoft's software useable... companies write drivers, people get certifications, companies pay IT staff, people write FAQs, people write software to fix Microsoft's product's downfalls... etc. That's millions of hours a month poured in to somebody else's product. Microsoft is deathly afraid that the money will show up for Linux and even a few bucks a the consumer market goes a long, long way. Look how many other distros target eeePC in just a few months!! All that's stopping them from winding up in consumer hands is a few bits of hardware and those bits are all the same for nearly all the hardware makers, if it's not Asus it will be somebody else.
substance90 @ May 10th 2008 3:34PM
Monopolistic fucks! Anyway, this way it`s even easier. Buy a cheaper Linux version, format and install an XP copy that you already own!
tom @ May 10th 2008 3:43PM
unless you got a retail version, you are more than welcome to do it. If you got an OEM, the license dies with the equipment.
Brian @ May 10th 2008 4:01PM
if they really want to compete with Linux, they should give XP away for free.
they've already made tons of money off it, and they have other cash cows (vista, office, etc.) to keep the shareholders happy. they've already spent 99% of the money on it that they're going to spend over the support life of the OS, so instead of killing it (which they were going to do in June) and not make any money off it, why not give it away and not make any money off it? don't make it open source, but give it away for free. that way you get the consumers in developing nations hooked on windows, so that when they're looking to upgrade they'll be more likely to buy vista because they're comfortable with windows. call it an investment with no up-front costs.
just my opinion.
packetsniffer @ May 10th 2008 4:26PM
Engadget totally missed the boat here.
They're not developing a modified version of XP, they're not locking down the OS, they're not preventing end users from installing other versions of the XP, and they're not preventing end users from installing other OSes.
As some other level-headed posters have said, this is a *licensing* issue that will be related to pricing for a ULPC license of XP to OEMs. That's it.
Jon Doe. @ May 10th 2008 4:45PM
level-headed apparently does not equal thinking this out. If this is a licensing issue trying to get XP on even moderately powerful hardware (Powerful by XP standards, not by Vista standards.) is going to be a problem, and while this is not an issue for the geeks of the world who will shrug, buy the higher end hardware with Linux on it, and install XP Pro. (Hell I have 3 legit corp keys for XP.)
Those who want a moderately powerful system in an itty bitty form factor are going to be hosed because of these licensing issues.
MS should have damn well been thinking about this when they build Vista. Frankly Vista IS modular enough to accommodate these systems. The problem is a catch 22. If they start offering a slimmed down Vista that can run on these stunted systems they will start to sell more copies of Vista, however manufacturers are then going to start complaining that they want these cheap o license for their low end laptops. I see this as almost a weird parallel to why Apple doesn't sell OS X to OEMS...kinda....if you squint really hard and are about 80 feet away from it.
packetsniffer @ May 15th 2008 9:49AM
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. But you knew that, right?
Jon Doe. @ May 10th 2008 4:33PM
Kelley,
Yes and back in 2001 how prevalent was H.264 at the time or any moderately high res video that due to XP's architecture hits the CPU pretty hard instead of the GPU? How pervasive was youtube and other CPU semi-intensive flash based "stuff". I hate to break this to you but just because the OS's system requirements haven't gone up doesn't mean Windows lives in a vacuum when it comes to the things that run ON the system. Hell even some of the web based flash games I play online would slow to an outright crawl on a 1GHz processor. And yes playing such things is an option on a 10" screen.
Good_Bytes @ May 10th 2008 5:01PM
Well that is nice, anything above these requirements will run Vista nicely.
Does that mean that Dell will stop selling XP? I mean I don't care, I custom build my computer and I use Vista already, a fine OS. I am saying this as Dell promised to keep delivering, as an option (and ~100$ Can. more) for selected computer, XP for some time.
linuxamp @ May 10th 2008 10:07PM
"anything above these requirements will run Vista nicely." Correction, Vista never runs nicely but anything above these requirements meet the minimum Vista requirements according to MS. Therefore they have no incentive to lower XP prices on those machines.
Amrit @ May 10th 2008 6:57PM
Just buy a copy or two of win xp prof and install it on any new machine you buy for the next few years.
I jus t bought myself a student copy frm my univ bookstore for 15 bucks !!
totally wrth it !!
linuxamp @ May 10th 2008 10:10PM
Considering that a retail or student license of XP is for ONE computer and MS plans to stop selling XP soon you'd better plan ahead and buy as many licenses as computers you plan to purchase in the next X years.
Amrit @ May 10th 2008 10:26PM
agreed...
CosterMonger @ May 12th 2008 12:43PM
I'm just going to grab an old $5 garage sale computer with XP license attached to the case, grab a part from it (like a stick of ram) and tape it to the inside of a new compy that way I can still abide by the XP EULA {as if it matters}.
dwr50 @ May 10th 2008 7:52PM
$32 is more than XP is worth.
brandon @ May 10th 2008 11:56PM
Did I really just hear you say high margin PC"s? Coming from the nations largest consumer elcetronics retailer I can assure you that this does not exist!
adrian @ May 11th 2008 8:16AM
They want to control Linux?, They can start by removing Windows Genuine Advantage and all other copy protection systems in XP, And stop telling vendors what hardware they can run in on.
GhostDoggy @ May 11th 2008 8:39AM
Microsoft does not care about individual sales. They are playing hardball with the OEM providers (Dell, et al) to justify their expense in developing Vista. No, this doesn't mean that could care less if the individual steals something, but they do not care if you like Vista or not. Now take your medicine or follow like me in replacing every Vista situation with a Linux solution (or Mac).
Just Say No, To Microsoft
fqcku @ May 11th 2008 10:36AM
Another M$ trick. Welcome to monoply.
Enki @ May 11th 2008 1:16PM
People pay for Windows?
Laughing Man @ May 11th 2008 4:53PM
I am glad that microsoft has made this statement. Please push them further into the world of Linux. I hope this is the start of Linux becoming a more mainstream alternative to general use personal PC's.
Schfelzerberg @ May 12th 2008 12:57AM
In developing countries, people will probably just buy the cheaper Linux version and have a 'computer technician' (with absolutely no license at all) bootleg Windows XP for $2. The bootleg XP costs $2. Go figure. Trust me. I live in one of these places you call 'third world' and 'developing' countries and it's the only thing they do. And regarding the stores that don't allow installation of bootleg XPs, they'll charge you $100 to install an OEM XP where in the first place, XP should have already been installed.
They're a bunch of money-hogging bastards. But why? Even a skilled worker (say an accountant and other similar jobs) here earns less in a day than what a teenager in America can make in about 2 or 3 hours working as some cashier or some other job that doesn't need a degree. Another thing BTW, the employers here are not so lax when it comes to job requirements. Here, even a becoming a cashier requires a college degree. No shit. Overpriced electronics due to importation and oh-so-low incomes don't exactly spell excitement.
jovray @ May 12th 2008 11:02AM
I've yet to figure out why anybody would bother paying more for an XP version of a low-cost pc. Universal linux OS installs like Ubuntu and Fedora are pretty smooth these days (though some issues/conflicts can come up) and having an OS that was tuned from factory to your machine means, for the most part, the linux OS on one of these machines is going to be stable and very useable.
The only advantages to XP that I hear people mention a lot are familiarity and software compatability. The former is valid for novice users, but the latter doesn't stand up when you are looking at low-powered computers. The only software packages I've seen for windows that don't have equal or superior equivalents in linux are so huge that they won't run comfortably on low-costers anyway (think games and big professional apps).
I'm not trying to be a jerk or start any arguements. I guess I'm just curious: what does XP offer that Linux doesn't on low-cost PCs?
CosterMonger @ May 12th 2008 12:36PM
games? {OLD SCHOOL, YEAH!}
though I'm a total Linux noob so I don't know how much stuff runs through wine, yet I know you need *dohs to run StarCraft at full speed on the EeePC {according to the EeePC User forums, I also notice more emulators run smoother on *dohs though I do likes me Linux for everything else.
CosterMonger @ May 12th 2008 12:55PM
WTF? 1GB of RAM? FUCK Microsoft! too busy stroking their own... egos.
I can get 2GB of Laptop ram for like $40.
I'm so going to buy the linux version and through on my own streamlined XP as well as ubuntu or xubuntu.
whiskey @ May 12th 2008 10:34PM
Please do tell me what is so important that you need XP to run it?
It's not like you will get to run Office on it comfortably, or get to use photoshop (lol, lightroom? you are dreaming right?).
Though i know you (dear engadgeteer) and me get that, most people won't and will probably end up buying the XP version... Please tell me, to what purpose? Will it be able to do as much as any other Linux distro you can throw at it?
I can almost see it now, a modified Starter version that cannot do much...
I also concur with some others that say that the specs are really minimal and too limiting. So unless you have some old softwares by your side that can be comfortably used on XP (and have no translation to Linux) i see no point on having XP on an Eee.