PDA

View Full Version : When are ARM netbooks due to be released?



hobo14
August 30th, 2009, 05:09 AM
I'm putting off buying a netbook until they are actually available with ARM processors.

I want a super cheap netbook (<$200) that will run all day on a single charge.

Anyone have any concrete dates for when they'll be available?

benmoran
August 30th, 2009, 05:48 AM
I want double 10s. 10 inch screen with 10 hours of battery life. I'll buy the first arm netbook that has that. I know it's a little big for a netbook, but it should also be incredibly light.

madjr
August 30th, 2009, 06:10 AM
i doubt at release they will be $200. they would handle about 10 hours on battery

the closest to release i've seen are these:

touch book (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1247931&highlight=touch+book)

sharp's new zaurus (http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Sharp-NetWalker-PCZ1-Mobile-Internet-Tool/) (seems japan only)

Yfrwlf
September 19th, 2009, 09:08 AM
Lolz


We don't really do Windows

While we admire Microsoft’s staying power in the industry, they lost their innovative edge many years ago. In the mean time, Linux and the open source community have made tremendous progress to offer an innovative and user-friendly desktop experience. The Touch Book is picking up this trend and comes with our own Linux-optimized system. Over time in 2009, we plan to support other Linux-based alternatives such as Google Android or interesting projects such as Moblin. As for Windows, XP cannot work on our platform by design — don't expect a native Photoshop on the Touch Book. Only Windows CE can make the cut, and Windows 7 is uncertain for the moment.

Unfortunately, the Touch Book is on backorder. Guess they couldn't keep up with demand. I want these low-powered processors to dominate, but I'm curious as to performance vs. Atom. So far from what I hear though, ARM beats Atom.

Open source software, allowing everything to be easily recompiled, will help free everyone from the inefficient stranglehold that is x86.

hobo14
October 2nd, 2009, 07:20 AM
It's been a month since I first posted this question; has anyone since then heard any news re. ARM based netbooks being released?
By released I mean in production, and on shelves....
I've been looking and listening, but haven't found anything yet.



I want double 10s. 10 inch screen with 10 hours of battery life. I'll buy the first arm netbook that has that. I know it's a little big for a netbook, but it should also be incredibly light.

I'd be very happy with "double 9s", but I'd also buy a "double 8s" netbook if nothing else was available.


Actually, I don't even care whether my netbook is ARM or x86, I just think I'll need ARM to get a price that is acceptable to me, and SSD to get the battery time and "drop-ability" that I need.




the closest to release i've seen are these:

touch book (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1247931&highlight=touch+book))
US$400 is too expensive, just PDA-like specs, and embedded OS. The manufacturer there must have a HUGE profit margin.

kavon89
October 2nd, 2009, 02:33 PM
I'd rather stick with a low power x86 processor such as the Intel Atom and get a larger battery for a netbook.

chrisjsmith
October 2nd, 2009, 02:38 PM
ARM's power requirements are negligible compared to X86 Atom. You're not going to get 10 hours on Atom.

Also be very afraid. Windows MAY yet turn up on ARM architecture. There /was/ code in the Windows tree for PPC, MIPS and Alpha... ARM is more than capable these days (as it always was).

My first ARM machine was back in 1988 (Acorn A310). It destroyed everything else overnight. I'd expect to see the same again.

Mateo
October 2nd, 2009, 02:46 PM
Can I ask why? Just curious.

Yfrwlf
October 3rd, 2009, 10:56 PM
I'd rather stick with a low power x86 processor such as the Intel Atom and get a larger battery for a netbook.

I heard ARM was much better battery-life-wise, but to be fair you'd have to attempt to compare performance doing the same task on each arch, and then compare the total power consumptions against each other. Only thing left to argue then would be potential optimization differences really. x86 may be bloated and power hungrier due to parts that never get used anymore really but exist for compatibility.

motang
October 4th, 2009, 01:55 AM
I heard they would be out close to the end of the year...I have been waiting for them as well!

Bölvağur
October 4th, 2009, 03:43 AM
They are already out. The ones that are out now are by smaller companies but are awesome none the less.

Skripka
October 4th, 2009, 03:45 AM
ARM's power requirements are negligible compared to X86 Atom. You're not going to get 10 hours on Atom.

That's funny, I get pretty darn close on my 9cell battery with my MSi Wind.

hobo14
October 4th, 2009, 04:09 AM
They are already out. The ones that are out now are by smaller companies but are awesome none the less.

Yes, I should really have been more specific in the thread title:
"When are SnapDragon, Freescale MX5 or Tegra powered netbooks going to be released?"



That's funny, I get pretty darn close on my 9cell battery with my MSi Wind.
I guess he probably meant without a 9 cell battery....

hobo14
October 29th, 2009, 03:34 AM
That's another month.

I've still seen nothing...

Anyone seen a Snapdragon or Tegra powered netbook for sale yet?

Any suggestions on where to watch, so I know when they come out?
I keep an eye on Engadget, Gizmodo and Slashdot.

Johnsie
October 29th, 2009, 03:56 AM
'Windows' already works on some ARM platforms. I wouldn't see it as a bad thing if Microsoft do make a full blooded OS for more advanced ARM architectures. I like alot of Microsoft stuff, including Windows.

chris200x9
October 29th, 2009, 03:58 AM
I found this interesting enough to start a new thread (which I will do) but I want one seriously framebuffer only http://www.calsoftlabs.com/whitepapers/firefox_gtk_dfb.html it would DESTROY higher priced laptops and be so sweet! Gentoo + ARM netbook + framebuffer = cheap pwnage! :)

3rdalbum
October 29th, 2009, 05:28 AM
'Windows' already works on some ARM platforms.

I don't think any large manufacturer would try putting Windows on an ARM netbook - they'd get more returns than similar Linux machines.

Think about it: We've got at least SOME Flash support on ARM Linux. Windows has none.

hobo14
October 30th, 2009, 11:35 AM
Just saw this (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/asus-android-based-secret-weapon-smartbook-launching-in-q1/)

Looks like there'll be no ARM netbook under the christmas tree this year... :(

Going to have to wait until next year (unless some other manufacturer comes out with a surprise announcement)

hobo14
October 31st, 2009, 12:26 AM
An

hobo14
November 28th, 2009, 06:15 AM
Another month, and still no releases, as far as I can see.

Has anyone seen anything I've missed?

I've seen these near-future coming releases on engadget:

Pegatron/Freescale/Ubuntu (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/22/pegatrons-ubuntu-equipped-netbook-spotted-in-the-wild/)

Asus/Snapdragon/Android (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/asus-android-based-secret-weapon-smartbook-launching-in-q1/)


and this ARM powered tablet (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/27/nvidia-tegra-tablet-prototype-hands-on/) looks interesting.

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 06:26 AM
There's probably a delay because Wintel would definitely take a punch from ARM+Linux (LARM???) and they are acting accordingly. I read that Microsoft pushed size and performance limitations on netbook manufacturers by threatening to raise the licensing cost for XP, and I wouldn't be surprised if both companies are making similar threats because of ARM.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 07:40 AM
There's probably a delay because Wintel would definitely take a punch from ARM+Linux (LARM???) and they are acting accordingly. I read that Microsoft pushed size and performance limitations on netbook manufacturers by threatening to raise the licensing cost for XP, and I wouldn't be surprised if both companies are making similar threats because of ARM.
Here's what will happen if/when they release an ARM netbook:

People will say "oh, neat" and then go on about their lives.

OR, in the very off chance that ARM would of some significant value to anybody:

Microsoft creates an ARM based version of Windows and wipes Linux off the face of the ARM line.

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 07:43 AM
Here's what will happen if/when they release an ARM netbook:

People will say "oh, neat" and then go on about their lives.

OR, in the very off chance that ARM would of some significant value to anybody:

Microsoft creates an ARM based version of Windows and wipes Linux off the face of the ARM line.

Sorry, but I believe otherwise...

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 07:56 AM
Sorry, but I believe otherwise...
You do that.

hobo14
November 28th, 2009, 07:59 AM
Here's what will happen if/when they release an ARM netbook:

People will say "oh, neat" and then go on about their lives.

OR, in the very off chance that ARM would of some significant value to anybody:

Microsoft creates an ARM based version of Windows and wipes Linux off the face of the ARM line.

MS see threats in popular hardware without windows, hence the extended life of XP and the reduced version of W7 for netbooks.

So if ARM netbooks become popular, MS will want to have an OS for them.
No Windows user is going to settle for less than W7, so a totally differently named Windows product is unlikely.
W7 chews a lot of resources, so it's unlikely to run on an ARM netbook unless severely crippled.
This all means MS would be in a sticky situation: a popular hardware platform without a good way of getting windows on it.

So I'd say yes; if it doesn't require too much effort, preventing/delaying the release of ARM based hardware by big name OEMs is in MS's own best interests.

EDIT: not that I actually think they've been successful in doing it. I think the reason for the slow release of ARM netbooks is just OEMs being cautious. No-one is keen on taking the risk first.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 08:03 AM
MS see threats in popular hardware without windows, hence the extended life of XP and the reduced version of W7 for netbooks.

So if ARM netbooks become popular, MS will want to have an OS for them.
No Windows user is going to settle for less than W7, so a totally differently named Windows product is unlikely.
W7 chews a lot of resources, so it's unlikely to run on an ARM netbook unless severely crippled.
This all means MS would be in a sticky situation: a popular hardware platform without a good way of getting windows on it.

So I'd say yes; if it doesn't require too much effort, preventing/delaying the release of ARM based hardware by big name OEMs is in MS's own best interests.
Let's say, hypothetically, that I once saw the NT source code. All hypothetical, mind you, and what if in all that hypothetical source code I happened to notice that this hypothetical code was easily portable. Hypothetically, I could have seen a few build scripts for a large amount of hypothetical processors, such as ARM.

Anyways, Microsoft is a business; they will follow the market and use their power to strongarm anybody away from their intersts. Linux doesn't stand a chance.

Khakilang
November 28th, 2009, 08:07 AM
What about performance? Is it lightning fast? Nevermind the number of hours.

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 08:11 AM
Let's say, hypothetically, that I once saw the NT source code. All hypothetical, mind you, and what if in all that hypothetical source code I happened to notice that this hypothetical code was easily portable. Hypothetically, I could have seen a few build scripts for a large amount of hypothetical processors, such as ARM.

Anyways, Microsoft is a business; they will follow the market and use their power to strongarm anybody away from their intersts. Linux doesn't stand a chance.

It's my understanding that NT has the "ability" to be easily ported to PowerPC, ARM, SPARC, and perhaps a few other ISAs, and these scripts you speak of do actually exist.

So could we see a Windows 7 Mobile? Sure, but given how much Windows CE and Windows Mobile suck, I don't know if that'll be anytime soon. And plus, doesn't it seem reasonable that if Microsoft were able to make an ARM port, netbook manufacturers would be selling Win7 with the Atom + 1gB of RAM? From this I conclude that Win7 doesn't run too well on a typical netbook; granted, a slimmed-down version might work just fine, but that doesn't exist yet.

hobo14
November 28th, 2009, 08:12 AM
Let's say, hypothetically, that I once saw the NT source code. All hypothetical, mind you, and what if in all that hypothetical source code I happened to notice that this hypothetical code was easily portable. Hypothetically, I could have seen a few build scripts for a large amount of hypothetical processors, such as ARM.
What are the other large numbers of processors? What ARM processor would have had the power they needed back when NT was written? They'll need a lot more than just the kernel.
Hypothetically, you would be talking out your a***.



Anyways, Microsoft is a business; they will follow the market and use their power to strongarm anybody away from their intersts. Linux doesn't stand a chance.
I don't necessarily disagree, but they'll have a tough time doing it on ARM.


You seem to have managed to read, somewhere in this thread, "ARM is the platform that will allow Linux to beat Windows", despite the fact that no-one said anything like that, and the thread topic is not in any way related to that.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 08:25 AM
So could we see a Windows 7 Mobile? Sure, but given how much Windows CE and Windows Mobile suck, I don't know if that'll be anytime soon.

While they both use the NT kernel, per se, CE, Mobile, and Windows (for desktops) use vastly different kernels.


What are the other large numbers of processors? What ARM processor would have had the power they needed back when NT was written? They'll need a lot more than just the kernel.
Hypothetically, you would be talking out your a***.
I don't necessarily disagree, but they'll have a tough time doing it on ARM.

Let's go into how many of the important components on Windows work:

*ehem*

There's this thing called bytecode, maybe you've heard of it. Well, nearly all of the extra applications that run atop Windows, like Media Player, or Text Editor, or the like, are compiled into this bytecode. This bytecode is interpreted by the CLR or DLR (depending on the version of .NET being used) and is thus not tied down to the system on a low level. Some features require a rewrite, but many applications can be recompiled for the new target with zero effort or modification. Everything else is done in kernel mode, which has already been ported.

Microsoft is ready for anything to happen. When you see "Linux ARM netbooks are the new hot-thing on the market", you'll see Microsoft out within a week, at the latest, with a new OS for the ARM platform. Once Microsoft puts out a product, Linux would be quickly wiped off the platform for sales.

hobo14
November 28th, 2009, 08:32 AM
Microsoft is ready for anything to happen. When you see "Linux ARM netbooks are the new hot-thing on the market", you'll see Microsoft out within a week, at the latest, with a new OS for the ARM platform. Once Microsoft puts out a product, Linux would be quickly wiped off the platform for sales.

That's ludicrous.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether Linux can hold onto market share in the face of MS aggression, because I don't care and because it's unrelated to the thread topic, but to suggest that MS could come out with an ARM port within a week is just laughable.

Having to create and maintain a port for other hardware would require HUGE expense and effort from MS, and you can bet your life that they'd really, really prefer not to do it if at all possible.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Having to create and maintain a port for other hardware would require HUGE expense and effort from MS, and you can bet your life that they'd really, really prefer not to do it if at all possible.

Which is why they aren't doing it right now. They're ready to deploy at any time though. Just think, I didn't take them but a few months to come out with a customized version of Windows to run on PowerPCs just for the purpose of gaming.

Also, Microsoft is very large, and very powerful, and they can contract the manpower to complete a project within a specific time if they must.

hobo14
November 28th, 2009, 09:17 AM
Which is why they aren't doing it right now. They're ready to deploy at any time though. Just think, I didn't take them but a few months to come out with a customized version of Windows to run on PowerPCs just for the purpose of gaming.

Also, Microsoft is very large, and very powerful, and they can contract the manpower to complete a project within a specific time if they must.

I'm glad you agree that it would require considerable expense and effort from MS; this comes back to the point that brought you in to this thread: MS does have a good reason (effort and expense) to not want ARM based hardware to be popular, and it's not unreasonable to think that they might try to pressure OEMs into at least delaying their releases. (I don't personally believe that this is the case, however).

On a side note, perhaps you can explain why MS created CE instead of porting NT?

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 09:38 AM
On a side note, perhaps you can explain why MS created CE instead of porting NT?

At the time an embedded system was needed for handheld systems, NT was too large to fit within the available memory space in many handhelds.

There are other reasons why NT wasn't used, but I believe this was one of the main reasons.

mivo
November 28th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Sorry, but I believe otherwise...

Frak is spot on, and the evidence is readily available. When netbooks came out, most were only available with Linux. Fast forward two years, many manufacturers no longer offer netbooks with Linux. The reason? Not pressure from Microsoft, but customers wanting the familiar Windows. Google a bit on Telco and such. MS didn't make people bring back their Linux netbooks as "defective" and insisting on the Windows version.

Ylon
November 28th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Eheh, if the ARM Netbook will come with (as been for firsts Netbook) Linux it will need another round for M$ to run all scared to blackmail and pumping their old platform (Windows NT or Windows Mobile) in order to stop this dangerous menace.

OEM's licences are coming to shutdown... even more and more people is realizing that have a notebook (vista) born old and that you had to-pay-again to make it usable for Seven (for short life) isn't no longer that appealing.


If Asus/Acer and co. are still unwilling to place Linux... there are a lot of newly ready to born companies to enter in the market without the "Microsoft protective Wing"

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 05:20 PM
...but customers wanting the familiar Windows. Google a bit on Telco and such. MS didn't make people bring back their Linux netbooks as "defective" and insisting on the Windows version.

You're right, but consider that two/three years ago, Vista was "new" and it was acceptable to sell netbooks with XP. Today, we have 7, and Vista is seen as a POS. The environment has changed.


While they both use the NT kernel, per se, CE, Mobile, and Windows (for desktops) use vastly different kernels.

Sorry, I wasn't totally clear. I know CE, Mobile and normal Windows are all different. My point was that Microsoft has had plenty of chances to develop a usable OS for ARM/low-power processors, and they kind of half-assed it.

Now, having said all this, I DO think that if Microsoft wanted to, they could easily make a smaller Windows 7 for ARM/Atom. But they haven't yet. And with ARM PCs just around the corner, we haven't heard anything from Microsoft. I'm concluding that when the first ARM PCs roll out, only Linux will be available (and possibly a MAC OS soon after).

perce
November 28th, 2009, 06:03 PM
There will be no ARM netbook from a mainstream manifacturer before a fully functional Windows ARM release

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 06:14 PM
But they haven't yet. And with ARM PCs just around the corner, we haven't heard anything from Microsoft. I'm concluding that when the first ARM PCs roll out, only Linux will be available (and possibly a MAC OS soon after).

Take PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha for instance. Both times, these were supposed to be the "next big thing" in processors. Microsoft supported the PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha platforms up to Windows NT 4. It was then determined that most users used the x86 platform, and there was no reason to actively support these old platforms. MIPS is fairly much dead on the desktop, the PowerPC is effectively dead (Re: IBM ends the Cell line (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/end-of-the-line-for-ibms-cell.ars)), and Alpha is no longer developed because HP (DEC -> Compaq -> HP) has no plans to recreate it.

Microsoft has been through these defunct platforms before, and they've learned to stick with their guns, because in the end, their platform will be the one that lives on.

castrojo
November 28th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Played with one at UDS (and the plenary presentation was done on a Pegatron ARM netbook). Very nice, almost 0 heat and very light. Makes the Mini 10v feel like a tank.

I keep hearing Xmas this year so I am waiting also.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Played with one at UDS (and the plenary presentation was done on a Pegatron ARM netbook). Very nice, almost 0 heat and very light. Makes the Mini 10v feel like a tank.

I keep hearing Xmas this year so I am waiting also.
I'm waiting for my name to come up on the Ai waiting list :)

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 07:24 PM
Take PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha for instance.

ARM-licensed processors have a 99.9999% market share in mobile processors + embedded systems.

Frak
November 28th, 2009, 07:27 PM
ARM-licensed processors have a 99.9999% market share in mobile processors + embedded systems.
And x86 processors control 95.99999% of the overall market.

Also, on a side note, I accept your I C WUT U DID THAR!, and give you a U C WUT I DID THAR?

jollysnowman
November 28th, 2009, 07:37 PM
And x86 processors control 95.99999% of the overall market.

Also, on a side note, I accept your I C WUT U DID THAR!, and give you a U C WUT I DID THAR?

Meh. I'm still not convinced. I'm done though.

In an effort to bring the thread back, I say somewhere between Q1 and Q2 of next year. :D

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 03:29 AM
There will be no ARM netbook from a mainstream manifacturer before a fully functional Windows ARM release

You'd better tell MS to hurry up then: Asus/Snapdragon/Android (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/asus-android-based-secret-weapon-smartbook-launching-in-q1/)

Asus are saying this will be out Q1 2010, and that's next quarter, so I think it's a safe bet it will be out in 2010.

I hope MS does do an ARM port for Windows(it will make ARM seem more palatable to "normal" people), but even if they do it will not be until there is already a reasonably strong ARM netbook market.
The port will be a hard slog for them though; from what I read, MS doesn't have enough ARM developers, and beyond MS there's a whole heap of third party software that Windows users are going to want, and MS can't do anything about that themselves.

mivo
November 29th, 2009, 05:24 AM
They had claimed a Q3 2009 release before, and it didn't happen. Don't get me wrong, at $180 I would get one of those regardless of what OS they come with, but the screen and keyboard will be too small for any serious use much beyond what I could use a phone for. (I bought a HP Mini 2140 netbook chiefly because of the superior, larger keyboard, even though it wasn't the best value for the relatively high price.) Needless to say, of course the ARM "smartbooks" won't be $180 in Europe, but probably €300. ;)

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 06:02 AM
Needless to say, of course the ARM "smartbooks" won't be $180 in Europe, but probably €300. ;)
We do it because we lub u all! :D

Warpnow
November 29th, 2009, 06:16 AM
There must also be the realization that microsoft dislikes netbooks and will likely dislike smartbooks even more. Its -very- bad for them when pricing of computers goes down. On a $1,000 workstation, a $150 OS is not noticable, but on a $200 netbook?

They hesitates before severely, they licenses special versions which largely crippled the ability of netbooks to thrive under XP by limiting what you could use the XP licenses on.

How much room is there for OS charge in a $100 netbook?

And maybe even people who prefer windows wouldn't want it if it cost half as much as the smartbook even. Will windows be able to price itself into the new market? That's what I wonder. Of course, from a technical stand point, they can always build an ARM windows, but will it be profitable?

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 06:21 AM
There must also be the realization that microsoft dislikes netbooks and will likely dislike smartbooks even more. Its -very- bad for them when pricing of computers goes down. On a $1,000 workstation, a $150 OS is not noticable, but on a $200 netbook?

2 things:

1. Microsoft licenses OEMs their OS for WAY less than $150
2. Apple has 91% of the $1000+ marketshare. (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624)

FLMKane
November 29th, 2009, 06:35 AM
Why does everybody miss the point? It doesn't matter if Windows is ported to ARM. The applications, the environment which sustains Microsoft CANNOT. It's easy enough with open source software (cross compile it). But with closed source software? You would have to get the software companies to do it for you, and they would probably decide not to do it.

The easiest way out would be to use an emulator for those old apps. But what is the point of using a VM on a netbook? There isn't.


Moreover, I believe that netbooks will hit $100 pretty soon. Microsoft wont be able to sustain itself at that price.

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 07:22 AM
There must also be the realization that microsoft dislikes netbooks and will likely dislike smartbooks even more. Its -very- bad for them when pricing of computers goes down. On a $1,000 workstation, a $150 OS is not noticable, but on a $200 netbook?

They hesitates before severely, they licenses special versions which largely crippled the ability of netbooks to thrive under XP by limiting what you could use the XP licenses on.

How much room is there for OS charge in a $100 netbook?

And maybe even people who prefer windows wouldn't want it if it cost half as much as the smartbook even. Will windows be able to price itself into the new market? That's what I wonder. Of course, from a technical stand point, they can always build an ARM windows, but will it be profitable?

That's a good point, though to keep Frak from complaining you should have said "On a $800 workstation, a $50 OS is not noticeable, but on a $200 netbook?" ;)

Makes even more sense for MS to dislike netbooks, esp. super cheap ones (eg ARM based).

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 07:32 AM
That's a good point, though to keep Frak from complaining you should have said "On a $800 workstation, a $50 OS is not noticeable, but on a $200 netbook?" ;)

Makes even more sense for MS to dislike netbooks, esp. super cheap ones (eg ARM based).
OEMs can use the starter edition of Windows for a flat $5 - $10 license fee. Mark my words, if Microsoft has to release a new version of Windows for another platform, they will devalue the platform to make people go back to Intel. People will prefer Microsoft over some unheardof OS. They have an obligation to raise the bottom line in profits, and if it takes them killing off a platform to do it, then they will do it.

ARM will stick around, but it will never be a major desktop player.

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 07:43 AM
OEMs can use the starter edition of Windows for a flat $5 - $10 license fee.

What absolute BS. How do you dream up this stuff? Even without ever seeing any contrary information I still wouldn't believe it.

But, as a 5 second rebuttal: the price difference between Ubuntu and Windows netbooks. Steve Ballmer's mouth (http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18838419;jsessionid=Z1ZIWYCBADL4FQE1GHRSKHWATMY32J VN). $50 is about right.


Mark my words, if Microsoft has to release a new version of Windows for another platform, they will devalue the platform to make people go back to Intel. People will prefer Microsoft over some unheardof OS. They have an obligation to raise the bottom line in profits, and if it takes them killing off a platform to do it, then they will do it.

ARM will stick around, but it will never be a major desktop player.

This I can at least mostly agree with, although I think it's premature to write off ARM so early.

EDIT: here's a link (http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/16/microsoft-says-oems-pay-about-50-for-windows-on-a-1-000-pc) that suggests Frak's pricing being closer to correct for cheap low end machines, while $50 being correct for high end machines.

EDIT 2: this (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-oems-pay-about-50-for-each-copy-of-windows.ars) is an interesting article on oem prices for windows.

Some links from that article:

This one suggests W7 at about $50 for netbooks. (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/microsoft-currently-asking-45-to-55-for-windows-7-starter.ars)

This one suggests MS will lower the price of W7 to about $15 for net books. (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/04/i-agree-windows-7-starter-is-a-small-gamble-for-microsoft.ars) That's the pricing strategy Frak refered to at work.

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 08:30 AM
What absolute BS. How do you dream up this stuff? Even without ever seeing any contrary information I still wouldn't believe it.

But, as a 5 second rebuttal: the price difference between Ubuntu and Windows netbooks. Steve Ballmer's mouth (http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18838419;jsessionid=Z1ZIWYCBADL4FQE1GHRSKHWATMY32J VN). $50 is about right.

It's 2009, and Microsoft has more than two versions of Windows. Starter is next to free for OEMs. Get your facts straight and check your dates. Nice rebuttal with smoke.

There, you can argue with that all day, but I am absolutely correct. Microsoft created starter for low power, low performance, low priced machines. Ignored.

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 08:34 AM
It's 2009, and Microsoft has more than two versions of Windows. Starter is next to free for OEMs. Get your facts straight and check your dates. Nice rebuttal with smoke.

There, you can argue with that all day, but I am absolutely correct. Microsoft created starter for low power, low performance, low priced machines.

Give us a link to flat fees of $5-10. Until you do, don't bother "correcting" people.

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Give us a link to flat fees of $5-10. Until you do, don't bother "correcting" people.

I work with a notebook manufacturer who also happens to process netbooks? Happy? Will I give you the name? No. Will I give you any more information? No. Why? That, my friend, is what we in the industry call sensitive information.

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 08:42 AM
I work with a notebook manufacturer who also happens to process netbooks? Happy? Will I give you the name? No. Will I give you any more information? No. Why? That, my friend, is what we in the industry call sensitive information.

I believe you as much as I believed you'd seen the NT source code. You've done nothing but make absurd claims throughout the thread.

AllRadioisDead
November 29th, 2009, 08:48 AM
I work with a notebook manufacturer who also happens to process netbooks? Happy? Will I give you the name? No. Will I give you any more information? No. Why? That, my friend, is what we in the industry call sensitive information.
I believe you.:popcorn:

KiwiNZ
November 29th, 2009, 08:50 AM
I believe you as much as I believed you'd seen the NT source code. You've done nothing but make absurd claims throughout the thread.

Please do not talk to other members in this way

Thank you

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 08:55 AM
Please do not talk to other members in this way

Thank you

I said I didn't believe him, and I called his claims absurd. Where did I go wrong?

Is is the "absurd"? I can't think of many better words to describe "I've seen a script to port NT to ARM in the NT source. MS could make an ARM port in a week. MS sells Windows for a flat fee of $5-10."

Frak
November 29th, 2009, 09:07 AM
I said I didn't believe him, and I called his claims absurd. Where did I go wrong?

Is is the "absurd"? I can't think of many better words to describe "I've seen a script to port NT to ARM in the NT source. MS could make an ARM port in a week. MS sells Windows for a flat fee of $5-10."

I tried looking where I said flat fee of $5 - $10. I couldn't find it. I did, though, say that it was around $5 - $10, since not all OEMs fit under the same umbrella from Microsoft.

EDIT
Wait, found it, I stand corrected. Meant around.

@ihermit
fwank you :)

KiwiNZ
November 29th, 2009, 09:08 AM
I said I didn't believe him, and I called his claims absurd. Where did I go wrong?

Is is the "absurd"? I can't think of many better words to describe "I've seen a script to port NT to ARM in the NT source. MS could make an ARM port in a week. MS sells Windows for a flat fee of $5-10."

Refer forum policy on how to address other members

http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy

hobo14
November 29th, 2009, 09:25 AM
A bit quick on the "delete post" button Kiwi. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

KiwiNZ
November 29th, 2009, 09:28 AM
Thread closed for staff review