Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th May 2008 18:11 UTC, submitted by Dan Warne
Hardware, Embedded Systems As we all know, the Eee PC, running a modified Xandros, has been a major hit for Asus, and because of that, also a major hit for Linux. The device proved that a computer with a pre-installed Linux distribution can still be s successful machine, and many hoped that this would push Asus and other vendors to produce more computers with Linux pre-installed. This hope could be in vain after all if the new Windows XP-based Eee PC has anything to do with it.
Order by: Score:
I thought about this...
by peejay on Wed 7th May 2008 18:44 UTC
peejay
Member since:
2005-06-29

I noticed that the XP eee was in this week's Best Buy ad, but I never remembered seeing a Linux one in there. Sounds like there could be more to that than I thought.

Scared
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 7th May 2008 18:49 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Microsoft is terrified of any linux computer having broad market penetration and is likely subsidising the Windows version and putting pressure on Asus to sell more Windows versions than Xandros versions. When you have a near monopoly you will do almost anything to protect it. Even if it ends up costing Microsoft hundreds of millions, it is worth it to them. Just my $0.02.

RE: Scared
by Morgan on Thu 8th May 2008 06:17 UTC in reply to "Scared"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Excellent observations. I personally think Asus was able to get a successful Linux-based laptop under Microsoft's radar simply because they were a relatively minor player in the portable market. Unlike Dell, who is constantly under pressure by Microsoft to under-advertise and devalue their own Ubuntu laptops and desktops, Asus was free to partner with Xandros quietly and successfully. Now that their EeePC has caused an explosion of interest in alternative OSes, Microsoft is having to play catch-up and attacking first in Australia where they have even more market penetration than here in the States. Once they really start turning the screws on Asus we'll see less and less of the Linux-based models available.

I think it's a desperate move by a giant whose head was in the clouds for such a long time he didn't notice the townspeople chopping away his feet until it was almost too late. Even Apple is seeing record-setting OS penetration while sales of Vista -- both on new PCs and boxed/OEM -- are stagnant compared to XP's first two years. I don't see Microsoft dying off any time soon, but there's a permanent shift brewing and I'm looking forward to it.

RE[2]: Scared
by trenchsol on Thu 8th May 2008 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Scared"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I think that Xandros is a small company which must make profit from this. Microsoft is rich, they can accept temporary loss in order to gain in the future. They could afford themselves to give away XP for free, they are going to discontinue it anyway.

I don't think there was a conspiracy behind it.

DG

RE[3]: Scared
by lemur2 on Thu 8th May 2008 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Scared"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think that Xandros is a small company which must make profit from this. Microsoft is rich, they can accept temporary loss in order to gain in the future. They could afford themselves to give away XP for free, they are going to discontinue it anyway.

I don't think there was a conspiracy behind it.

DG


Regardless of any thought of "a conspiracy behind it" ... it still remains illegal in Australia to engage in what amounts to "predatory pricing" ... which the giving away of Windows XP in order to forestall people from using the Xandros alternative ... would certainly amount to.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816375

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act_1974

RE[4]: Scared
by Moredhas on Fri 9th May 2008 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scared"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

People seem to forget the ACCC is utterly useless. You hear about them once in a blue moon, and they rarely ever win. If they couldn't beat Telstra, they aren't likely to beat Microsoft. They're not even likely to challenge Microsoft, even if they have a mile of paperwork thrown at them TELLING them to do it.

RE[4]: Scared
by trenchsol on Sun 11th May 2008 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scared"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I guess that it is illegal elsewhere, but Microsoft was able to do it anyway. Maybe is hard to prove. Besides, XP is an "old" operating system, it should become cheap.

But, as someone mentioned here, Microsoft is willing to sell their product at discount price, or give it away, more often than in the past. I think that Microsoft has reached its upper limits.

RE: Scared
by lemur2 on Thu 8th May 2008 12:42 UTC in reply to "Scared"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft is terrified of any linux computer having broad market penetration and is likely subsidising the Windows version and putting pressure on Asus to sell more Windows versions than Xandros versions. When you have a near monopoly you will do almost anything to protect it. Even if it ends up costing Microsoft hundreds of millions, it is worth it to them. Just my $0.02.


Without doubt this is the case.

The problem will be demonstrating that this is the case to the ACCC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Co...

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent authority of the government of Australia. It was established in 1995 with the amalgamation of the Australian Trade Practices Commission (TPC) and the Prices Surveillance Authority to administer the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Its mandate is to protect consumer rights, business rights and obligations, perform industry regulation and price monitoring and prevent illegal anti-competitive behaviour.


It is clearly "illegal anti-competitive behaviour" and also against "consumer rights & business rights" for Microsoft to be able to force Asus to not offer to Asus customers the option to get the best deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act_1974

The things that could potentially apply here I have shown in bold from the Wikipedia extract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act_1974#Part_IV:_Rest...

===================
These provisions prohibit:

* Most Price Agreements (see Cartel and Price-Fixing)

* Primary boycotts (an agreement between parties to exclude another)

* Secondary boycotts whose purpose is to cause substantial lessen competition (Actions between two persons engaging in conduct hindering 3rd person from supplying or acquiring goods or services from 4th)

* Misuse of market power - taking advantage of substantial market power in a particular market, for one or more proscribed purposes; namely, to eliminate or damage an actual or potential competitor, to prevent a person from entering a market, or to deter or prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct.

* Exclusive dealing - an attempt to interfere with freedom of buyers to buy from other suppliers, such as agreeing to supply a product only if a retailer does not stock a competitor's product. Most forms of exclusive dealing are only prohibited if they have the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market.

* Third-line forcing: A type of exclusive dealing, third-line forcing involves the supply of goods or services on the condition that the acquirer also acquires goods or services from a third party. Third-line forcing is prohibited per se.

* Resale price maintenance - fixing a price below which resellers cannot sell or advertise

* Mergers and acquisitions that would result in a substantial lessening of competition

=====

... There is also a prohibition on "predatory pricing" of product on a market in order to remove a competitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816375

Finally, in Australia, AFAIK product "tying" is also illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
"Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components."

Edited 2008-05-08 12:49 UTC

Yup. It stinks.
by spungo on Wed 7th May 2008 19:02 UTC
spungo
Member since:
2006-05-20

I like how they're trying to justify it with the smaller hard disk (on the XP version) -- but this revelation has a very bad smell to it. One gets the impression that the folks at Redmond were quietly soiling themselves when the Xandros Eee came out -- and was a success. I expect things went into a different gear once this had sunk in -- and now they're reacting by pulling out all the stops -- nay, racketeering tactics -- to get this trend reversed. Nothing scares them more than OEM adoption of Linux.

Edited 2008-05-07 19:04 UTC

Should
by SoloDeveloper on Wed 7th May 2008 19:09 UTC
SoloDeveloper
Member since:
2008-03-16

They should sell the Linux eee Pc for the same price as the XP one, with the included better hardware specs.

that way, people can see how much they are actually losing in cash for the Microsoft Tax.

However, i suspect that Microsoft probably cut a deal with Asus to get the lower price, and i cant help but wonder if this is Really XP, or WinFLP with the XP UI added in...

I don't like this title
by Manuel FLURY on Wed 7th May 2008 19:16 UTC
Manuel FLURY
Member since:
2005-07-05

Seriously, 12GB XP instead of 20GB Linux, it's not cheaper, it's just a lower hardware that justify the lower price.

RE: I don't like this title
by TLZ_ on Wed 7th May 2008 19:22 UTC in reply to "I don't like this title"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Then where is the 12 GB Linux version?

(Although I agree the title is a tad sensationalistic)

RE[2]: I don't like this title
by sbergman27 on Wed 7th May 2008 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't like this title"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

While I'm usually not into conspiracy theories... this does seem a bit odd. Why would Asus decide not to offer the Linux unit with 12GB of flash? Unless someone did not want the non-MS unit to be beat out on price for PR reasons. It seems to me that in this low end market, having a unit offered at the lowest would be desirable. I can't help but wonder if Asus didn't have a little help from someone in deciding on the relative hardware and price points. I have no insider information, of course. It's just one of those things that make me go hmmmm....

RE[3]: I don't like this title
by lemur2 on Wed 7th May 2008 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't like this title"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

While I'm usually not into conspiracy theories... this does seem a bit odd. Why would Asus decide not to offer the Linux unit with 12GB of flash? Unless someone did not want the non-MS unit to be beat out on price for PR reasons. It seems to me that in this low end market, having a unit offered at the lowest would be desirable. I can't help but wonder if Asus didn't have a little help from someone in deciding on the relative hardware and price points. I have no insider information, of course. It's just one of those things that make me go hmmmm....


I've been thinking about buying the cheaper 12GB XP variant, refusing the Windows EULA on first power-up (possibly I would wipe the disk of XP with witnesses, possibly right there in the store), and then demand a refund (as the Windows EULA apparently says I am entitled to) from the retailer.

Then I would put, say, Mandriva 2008.1 on it.

http://www.mandriva.com/enterprise/en/company/press/mandriva-presen...
http://eeepc.net/mandriva-20081-works-with-eee-pcs/

That could possibly put a spanner in the works.

Edited 2008-05-08 00:00 UTC

RE[4]: I don't like this title
by danieldk on Thu 8th May 2008 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't like this title"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Actually, the current wording in Windows licenses seems to be (at least in Vista):

"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit."

I have seen manufacturers that simply state that their return policy is that you can get a refund for the whole machine, but not for the Windows license. The argumentation is that the Windows license is tied to the hardware (whatever that means).

Hopefully, your national laws give consumers more protection, because the EULA is probably not going to do it for you.

RE[2]: I don't like this title
by DigitalAxis on Wed 7th May 2008 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't like this title"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I recall reading somewhere that the reason they went with the 4 GB ROM + 8 GB SSD for Windows and the 4 GB ROM + 16 GB SSD was to make the costs the same for each version, and to make the Linux one that much more attractive.

Granted, all that means is we're liable to see lots of people buy the Linux version to stick Windows XP on it... I've found reviews that bragged how they never once used the Linux system.

RE: I don't like this title
by gonzo on Wed 7th May 2008 20:16 UTC in reply to "I don't like this title"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't you get 8 GB SD card for like $30-40, so XP version is still cheaper, is it not?

RE[2]: I don't like this title
by Manuel FLURY on Wed 7th May 2008 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't like this title"
Manuel FLURY Member since:
2005-07-05

whatever, I don't think internal memory used in the eeePC is the same as an SD card, but personnaly I would prefer to buy the 20GB version ;)

RE[3]: I don't like this title
by satan666 on Wed 7th May 2008 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't like this title"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

I think it is better to buy the Windows version and install Mandriva 2008.1 (it is supposed to work out of the box, wifi and all the good stuff) or another Linux tailored for eeePC. Microsoft is loosing money with every computer sold with Windows because of the subventions. So the more computers are sold the worse for Microsoft. In addition, by buying the Windows eeePC you don't support Xandros (which has a patent deal with Microsoft).
But better than all this is to boycott eeePCs altogether.
Someone already mentioned that there are better choices on the market.

RE[4]: I don't like this title
by gonzo on Wed 7th May 2008 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't like this title"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft is loosing money with every computer sold with Windows because of the subventions. So the more computers are sold the worse for Microsoft.


How is Microsoft losing money on this - I mean, how much does it cost MS to make copy of XP?? Like.. $1 or even less? Even then.. How exactly ARE they losing money if they are selling it for like $0?

It's not like with XBox 360 or PS3, you know, where they have hardware and manufacturing expenses.

Anyway, if you're buying XP model just because of that, you should see psychiatrist.

Edited 2008-05-07 21:32 UTC

RE[4]: I don't like this title
by lemur2 on Thu 8th May 2008 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't like this title"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think it is better to buy the Windows version and install Mandriva 2008.1 (it is supposed to work out of the box, wifi and all the good stuff) or another Linux tailored for eeePC. Microsoft is loosing money with every computer sold with Windows because of the subventions. So the more computers are sold the worse for Microsoft. In addition, by buying the Windows eeePC you don't support Xandros (which has a patent deal with Microsoft). But better than all this is to boycott eeePCs altogether. Someone already mentioned that there are better choices on the market.


I am probably going to cool down a bit after venting at Asus, and wait to see what Acer have to offer later this year (9-inch screen with an Intel Atom processor, I believe).

Having said that, even though this sham has probably caused me to drop the idea of getting an EEEPC entirely in favour of something from another manufacturer that better deomnstrates support for Linux, nevertheless I will still make a complaint to the ACCC over this.

RE[4]: I don't like this title
by danieldk on Thu 8th May 2008 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't like this title"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Microsoft is loosing money with every computer sold with Windows because of the subventions.


Do they? I guess that depends on the development effort put in making an EEE PC-specific version. If it's mostly plain XP, they profit from it, given that duplication cost is near zero. Given that they probably have earned the development effort for XP back a few years ago, each copy sold at a higher price than material/distribution costs will give them profit.

Except if they provide full-blown support for these Windows copies, of course.

i agree...
by hobgoblin on Wed 7th May 2008 19:16 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

with the other comments here. i suspect microsoft is taking a loss on every eeepc with xp installed just so as to maintain mindshare.

Restraint of Trade
by Obdurodon on Wed 7th May 2008 19:19 UTC
Obdurodon
Member since:
2008-05-07

This is exactly the same kind of "bundling" that MS has gotten into trouble over before, and rightly so. It's anti-competitive, and I hope the Australian equivalent of the FTC does the right thing by forbidding it.

I own an Eee 701. It does just fine with only 4GB. You can't put $10 worth of extra flash in it and then charge $50 *less* for the version with the otherwise-expensive software license included than for the version without. It's just not credible as a business decision made for any reason other than to support a near-monopoly. Don't think of this as charging $50 less for the Windows version. What they're really doing is charging $50 more for the Linux version, with some percentage of that pure profit being used as a kickback to Microsoft.

RE: Restraint of Trade
by satan666 on Wed 7th May 2008 19:30 UTC in reply to "Restraint of Trade"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

What they're really doing is charging $50 more for the Linux version, with some percentage of that pure profit being used as a kickback to Microsoft.
I don't think it makes any sense from a business point of view. I'd rather agree with the others that Microsoft is losing money on this one. Microsoft is losing lots of money nowadays. They give away XP for as low as $5 in Russia and other developing countries. How these revenues cover their expenses? I don't know but I hope Microsoft goes down. It's about time.

RE[2]: Restraint of Trade
by MadRat on Thu 8th May 2008 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Restraint of Trade"
MadRat Member since:
2006-02-17

That $5 price in developing countries is what really is killing Microsoft. Think about it, every third world little twit can learn on Windows on the cheap while Americans have to pay heavily for the privilege to be hacked by said twits. It just made no business sense whatsoever to even market Windows abroad if they had to cut the price.

RE[3]: Restraint of Trade
by tomcat on Fri 9th May 2008 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Restraint of Trade"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

That $5 price in developing countries is what really is killing Microsoft.


How is it "killing" them? It's not as if they're losing money with every copy sold. It's found money.

RE[2]: Restraint of Trade
by fluxy on Thu 8th May 2008 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Restraint of Trade"
fluxy Member since:
2008-01-30

[i]They give away XP for as low as $5 in Russia and other developing countries. How these revenues cover their expenses?


Well I live in a developing countries, and almost every desktop user wanting Windows XP/Vista can have it for about $5 (pirated version) and everyone does so. Which is why bringing a $5 legit version is a pretty wise decision from Microsoft coz this is a market they would normally never had - people will simply not buy a 'normal' priced Windows coz it's too expensive for em - so it's better for Microsoft to pocket the $5 rather than a pirated-copy seller. Microsoft also gains by getting people hooked on their software so that they get Microsoft-trained and be ready for enterprise where Microsoft can easily sell 'normal' priced software. (since people already have the skills to use these software)

RE[2]: Restraint of Trade
by bert64 on Thu 8th May 2008 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Restraint of Trade"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

It's easy to make profit selling software for $5, the one-off costs to develop XP have long since been recovered many times over, so now producing additional copies of it costs a few cents at most for the physical media, even less for a paper or electronic "license code".

This could even work out good for Linux... Linux is perceived by many as being inferior and worthless simply because it's free... But in this case, the Linux model is clearly superior to the Windows one, and therefore people will expect it to cost more. If it costed less, or even the same, people would (wrongly) assume there was some hidden drawback to it.
Now the more expensive linux version is clearly a better model, it comes with a much better selection of software, it boots faster, it has considerably more storage space, and for many this is likely to justify the extra cost.

However there is clearly something nefarious going on being orchestrated by microsoft... Otherwise, Asus would be offering the 12GB version with Linux at the lowest price point of all the models, and possibly a 20gb windows version as the most expensive.

What needs to be done, is side by side comparisons of the two models that present the superiority of the Linux version to the public.

RE: Restraint of Trade
by tomcat on Wed 7th May 2008 23:50 UTC in reply to "Restraint of Trade"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

This is exactly the same kind of "bundling" that MS has gotten into trouble over before, and rightly so. It's anti-competitive


Huh? How is it anti-competitive? Asus is no different than any other OEM.

RE: Restraint of Trade
by sbergman27 on Thu 8th May 2008 00:00 UTC in reply to "Restraint of Trade"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

This is exactly the same kind of "bundling" that MS has gotten into trouble over before, and rightly so.

My suspicion is that the XP version comes with demo versions of about 10 different pieces of crapware like desktop machines do. The vendors pay per unit to have their demos included, thus offsetting the cost of the OS license. If this is the case, it is problematic. Do we demand that Asus release the Linux version with crapplets?

The main question in my mind is why is there no 12GB Linux version?

RE[2]: Restraint of Trade
by lemur2 on Thu 8th May 2008 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Restraint of Trade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This is exactly the same kind of "bundling" that MS has gotten into trouble over before, and rightly so.
My suspicion is that the XP version comes with demo versions of about 10 different pieces of crapware like desktop machines do. The vendors pay per unit to have their demos included, thus offsetting the cost of the OS license. If this is the case, it is problematic. Do we demand that Asus release the Linux version with crapplets? "

This "explanation" still does not answer why the Linux version is more expensive than Windows version in Australia, but the two versions are the same price in other countries.

The main question in my mind is why is there no 12GB Linux version?


This is another valid question, but it will be harder to put a case to the ACC on this question as there is no requirement AFAIK that sellers HAVE TO offer particular combinations of features in a product.

RE[3]: Restraint of Trade
by sbergman27 on Thu 8th May 2008 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Restraint of Trade"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

This "explanation" still does not answer why the Linux version is more expensive than Windows version in Australia, but the two versions are the same price in other countries.

Has this been established with certainty?

RE[4]: Restraint of Trade
by lemur2 on Thu 8th May 2008 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Restraint of Trade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This "explanation" still does not answer why the Linux version is more expensive than Windows version in Australia, but the two versions are the same price in other countries.
Has this been established with certainty? "

Not at all ... there is only apparently one magazine article (in APC), which could very well have the pricing wrong.

Any complaint to the ACCC would of course have to wait for an official announcement from Asus Australia.

However, AFAIK, it IS established that the 20GB Linux variant and the 12GB Windows XP variant are being offered for the same price in other countries.

Edited 2008-05-08 00:45 UTC

Comment by daddio
by daddio on Wed 7th May 2008 19:23 UTC
daddio
Member since:
2007-07-14

I think Microsoft Windows has finally come full circle.

Just as Windows 3.1 had to be given away for free to make it attractive to OEMs, Windows XP must be lower cost (read subsidized by MS) than the Free GNU/Linux OS to have any appeal here.

Mark my words, you will see more of this as Redmond becomes more desperate. I mean really, how many computer n00bs are going to head down to bestbuy to buy a copy of Windows if the preinstalled Linux gets on Youtube and has a word processor? And of those how many can really get all the way through a windows installation on their own?

Windows could never survive in the wild.

Some enterprises will continue to use it, so it may be the new AS/400. grossly expensive, but cheaper to keep around than to port all their existing apps.

Edited 2008-05-07 19:25 UTC

USA retail price difference?
by Bobthearch on Wed 7th May 2008 19:25 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

I wonder how that will translate to retail prices in the USA. The Linux eeePC models are currently priced $299 (and up) at American retailers. Will the XP-based units be even less expensive than that?

RE: USA retail price difference?
by B12 Simon on Thu 8th May 2008 10:22 UTC in reply to "USA retail price difference?"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

They'll be more but you get a bigger screen and Flash Drive.

Price is too high
by Moulinneuf on Wed 7th May 2008 19:28 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does $599 and $649 buy in Australia ?

Because the other ASUS Eee PC are 299.99$ - 499$ here in CANADA.

http://www.ncix.com/search/?categoryid=0&q=eee+pc

RE: Price is too high
by stabbyjones on Wed 7th May 2008 23:27 UTC in reply to "Price is too high"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

i bought the 701 (4GB) here in Australia for $483 in feb this year, which is currently ~450USD.

The price for everything is too high here. games cost almost double what you can buy them for in the US now.
50USD does not equal 100AUD!

i won't be upgrading my eeepc because it already does what i need and after i installed ubuntu from a usb stick it has it all i want.

paying that much more for a larger screen isn't worth it as far as i can see. the drive space is also irrelevant as i keep work on usb sticks and have a SDHC storage card for extra data.

you should be able to pick up a good 701 for cheap very soon. ;)

Why would you even want XP?
by Michael on Wed 7th May 2008 19:32 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

This simply isn't the sort of device you'd buy if you wanted, say, Photoshop or Dreamweaver or whatever the latest "I-can't-dump-widnows-because" app is.

I'd rather have the Linux version becuase there's more software freely available for it. I don't know what the XP version's bundled with but there's no way it can beat a typical Linux setup.

v RE: Why would you even want XP?
by sanctus on Wed 7th May 2008 20:34 UTC in reply to "Why would you even want XP?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Maybe some who like to use the built-in webcam to chat with friends.

What do you mean? The web cam works fine with the Linux version out of the box, and comes with skype and google talk.

Nalle Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want to use the web-cam with MSN, you can install aMSN that can handle web-cams just fine.

I do not have an eee (waiting for the one with Norwegian keyboard that comes in June) but I'm still pretty sure that you can install aMSN. At least you can with eeeBuntu.

Nalle Berg
./nalle.

RE: Why would you even want XP?
by ari-free on Thu 8th May 2008 07:31 UTC in reply to "Why would you even want XP?"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

there's a lot of free software for windows. There's open source ports like openoffice and gimp for windows but Microsoft Office Accounting express is also free. I wonder if there is anything that compares to that accounting package on linux.

I hope it will be investigated.
by agrouf on Wed 7th May 2008 19:38 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

I seriously believe there is an illegal deal behind that in many countries.
I believe this is illegal i the EU and in the US at least.
I hope the EU show some teeths and investigate the deal Asus has made with Microsoft and that a serious fine will follow and that they actually pay it and provide both OS with the same configuration.
The phone companies got fines for using that kind of tactic in the EU.

noisyjazzman Member since:
2008-05-07

This monopolistic dumping is clearly illegal in Austalia.

I've initiated a complaint about ASUS's behaviour with the ACCC, and would encourage any other Australians who are pissed off about this to do the same. Just go to http://www.accc.gov.au/.

Nothing like a consumer howl to make government depts listen.

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This monopolistic dumping is clearly illegal in Austalia. I've initiated a complaint about ASUS's behaviour with the ACCC, and would encourage any other Australians who are pissed off about this to do the same. Just go to http://www.accc.gov.au/. Nothing like a consumer howl to make government depts listen.


That is a very good idea.

I will do just that ... and show how there is no offer of the Linux version on the cheaper hardware, and that the Linux version on more expensive hardware is the same price as the Windows version in other countries, but more expensive in Australia.

There can be absolutely no justification for this ... it is clearly price fixing and anti-competitive.

The ACC should have them for it.

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

There can be absolutely no justification for this ... it is clearly price fixing and anti-competitive.


You don't know what you're talking about. Price-fixing is when two or more market players collude with one another to set an artificial price that distorts the marketplace; in most cases, price-fixing is done by cartels in order to keep prices artificially high. Clearly, Microsoft isn't colluding with Xandros. So, in fact, what you're seeing is .... gasp ... competition. Which is precisely what I like to see.

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"There can be absolutely no justification for this ... it is clearly price fixing and anti-competitive.
You don't know what you're talking about. Price-fixing is when two or more market players collude with one another to set an artificial price that distorts the marketplace; in most cases, price-fixing is done by cartels in order to keep prices artificially high. Clearly, Microsoft isn't colluding with Xandros. So, in fact, what you're seeing is .... gasp ... competition. Which is precisely what I like to see. "

Price fixing was not the term I was after, sorry about that.

"Predatory pricing" is what I was after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

In the context of Microsoft, Xandros, Asus and the EEEPC, predatory pricing would have occured if Microsoft offered Asus a lower price or other special terms for XP on the EEEPC compared to other deals for laptops with other OEMs, simply because Asus were offering a Linux option on the same laptop that would have exposed a side-by-side true cost comparison visible to consumers.

.......
by islander on Wed 7th May 2008 19:55 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

I have used Xandros and I liked it.

But...

I am going to take the hits and say I think its a poor choice of a distro to use to seriously compete with XP which at this late stage is a poor enough choice as well.

RE: ....... - luckily, there are others
by jabbotts on Wed 7th May 2008 20:33 UTC in reply to "......."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm partial to trying the Mandriva eeePC build but Ubuntu and a few other distros have eeePC specific installs now along side there liveCD and full install media.

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I felt the same way when I got my model 701. But even with the 7 inch 800x480 screen, I found regular old Ubuntu to be the my preferred OS for it. It took remarkably little tweaking. And despite its size, it has more than enough power to run real Gnome. It is a fallacy to think that, being small, it needs a lite distro like eeeXubuntu. Or eeeAnything, really. As long as there is a good way to install via usb media.

islander Member since:
2007-04-11

That being the case do you think it would have been a good idea to have an open enthusiast's model where it comes with no operating system and leave the install up to the user at a cheaper price ?

I think so.

Captain Halibut Member since:
2007-04-08

I agree. Thought I could get Zeta on it, but no luck so far. Mind you ( biased though I am to anything Linux ) I did try Leszek's ZevenOS for a while, only to ditch it a few days later. I fear a slip-streamed 2K or XP is on the cards.

Edited 2008-05-08 01:45 UTC

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Both companies have released a hardware platform with a mostly open OS. They put resources into developing there portion of the OS but they don't hamper the ability for other's to add and modify.

- Those that just want the manufacturer's functions, it has a default OS install with intended basics.

- Those that want too add functions too there device, repositories are available. Even a few different OS if one is so inclined; I have partitions for my old 2007 install as was and current 2008 install plus the raw install on internal memory should I need a system rescue boot (my PDA is a tripple boot.. muwahahaha).

- Those that want to cross compile or write native programs for there device; Maemo is based on Debian and it seems there is a wide selection of OS for the eee hardware with the usual benefits of source and repositories.

I fall into the second group; never could be limited too the manufacturer's defaults and I don't have time to write my own source. A background in .NET doesn't help much for coding for *nix anyhow.

It's the best of both worlds; a default OS with the option to change it after plus the resources needed for other's to freely contribute.

The N800 was the first thing since the Palm T5 that could be called an upgraded too it's design and function set. With the eee, the small screen was the only turn off; now it has the larger screen but at higher cost so we'll see what makes sense when budget's permit. I think I may look at going from 800 too 810 instead of CF27 too eee.

islander Member since:
2007-04-11

I'm partial to trying the Mandriva eeePC build but Ubuntu and a few other distros have eeePC specific installs now along side there liveCD and full install media.


Xandros at one time I considered the number one Windows inoperability distro .These days I dont think that is the case as the big four , OpenSuse , Mandriva ,Ubuntu and Fedora have come such a long way.

I think the branding on Xandros is so weak that Asus couldn't be bothered and just decided to bow down to Microsoft

Comment by zizban
by zizban on Wed 7th May 2008 20:08 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Has Microsoft put pressure on Asus to promote XP over Linux?

I bet you $100 they did.

RE: Comment by zizban
by satan666 on Wed 7th May 2008 20:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by zizban"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

They definitely did, but business is business and nothing is free. I'd say Microsoft paid lots of money for this.

8GB Flash for $50
by saterdaies on Wed 7th May 2008 20:13 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

Considering that I can get an 8GB flash card for $50, they're essentially charging $0 for Windows XP - potentially charging more for Linux.

To be honest, this is kinda the problem with the cheap PC movement. Microsoft just realizes that its monopoly is more important than holding to a price. It's why poor countries haven't move to Linux - Microsoft just comes out with a starter edition or something for them.

One of the things that free market economics rests on is not being able to price discriminate. Microsoft seems to be doing its best to get around that so that it can both charge a lot to most people and keep people from charging less in an attempt to break the monopoly.

RE: 8GB Flash for $50
by gonzo on Wed 7th May 2008 20:58 UTC in reply to "8GB Flash for $50"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Considering that I can get an 8GB flash card for $50, they're essentially charging $0 for Windows XP - potentially charging more for Linux.


Actually, 8GB SDHC card can be found for less than that. I just checked around, you can have it for like $40, so, I know it sounds crazy, but XP version can be cheaper actually.. (if you care at all about $10 or so).

RE[2]: 8GB Flash for $50
by DigitalAxis on Thu 8th May 2008 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE: 8GB Flash for $50"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Now, if you go look somewhere (like, say, NewEgg) and find the price differences for Solid State Devices... well, I see that among 1.8" SSDs, the 8 GB version costs $166; the 16 GB version costs $300 USD.
I'd link to it but I'm not sure if that sort of link will work.

No doubt Asus has volume discounts, but that makes the difference in what you're getting over $100, and you'll still have the free SDHC port.

RE: 8GB Flash for $50
by ari-free on Thu 8th May 2008 07:38 UTC in re