bit-tech.net

Microsoft bans netbooks with hybrid storage

Microsoft bans netbooks with hybrid storage

You want to create a netbook with hybrid SSD and HDD storage? Not if you're using XP, says Microsoft

COMPUTEX 2009: Microsoft has banned netbook manufacturers from making hybrid storage netbooks: those with both SSD and hard drives when using Windows XP Home, bit-tech has learnt.

It seems Redmond gets in quite a fluff with regards to the new market of mini-portables and this arbitrary licensing limitation is in addition to the "maximum of 1GB of memory" already enforced, if companies want to buy Windows XP Home to stick on their cheap 10"ers.

Unfortunately for MSI, it's Wind U115 netbook was the only one affected as it was already in the market before Redmond made the declaration, and MSI has until the end of June to remove the ultra-long battery life products from the shelves.

Although MSI are committed to play nice with Microsoft and are agreeing to the terms laid out, personally we hope someone throws the anti-competitive book at them (again) because the Wind U115 is a nice bit of kit.

Hybrid storage works in the Wind by installing the OS onto the SSD portion of the U115, then offering 160GB of standard 2.5" hard drive as additional mass storage which can be turned on and off on a whim to save power: it's just like having a big-ass USB key, but built in. And faster.

It's a shame the Linux netbook movement didn't take off, which is thanks Microsoft's compatibility weight too great and most netbook users buying and requesting a Microsoft OS. With Vista's fat belly too much for the lightweight Atom, and Windows 7 far off in October still, Microsoft doesn't want to hurt its Vista business with hacked in hybrid storage solutions.

Discuss in the forums.

Microsoft bans netbooks with hybrid storage Microsoft: NO netbooks with Hybrid storage

48 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Bauul 4th June 2009, 15:15 Quote
If it wasn't for the painted nails, going on the bangles I'd presume that was Joe's hand.

Or maybe it is anyway.......
DarkLord7854 4th June 2009, 15:23 Quote
How is it anti-competitive if they limit what an old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support gets installed on? They're likely trying to push Windows 7 rather than XP.


If that's anti-competitive then what do you call Apple limiting OSX to Apple approved software..?
Krikkit 4th June 2009, 15:34 Quote
For £500 the U115 should be a bloody awesome bit of kit. Jesus.
bigkingfun 4th June 2009, 15:42 Quote
How come nobody makes a notebook without a preinstalled OS?

Then all of the MS rules for notebooks could be circumvented?
landi_uk 4th June 2009, 15:47 Quote
"old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support"

You do realise that XP support has been extended to 2014. Time to get up to date methinks ;-)

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/06/26/windows-xp-support-extended-until-2014
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

As to them trying to push Win7 over existing OS's, of course they will. It's funny how MS are the only ones that keep being charged over anti-competitive behaviour, whereas Apple and others don't have to conform to the same rules.
DarkLord7854 4th June 2009, 15:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by landi_uk
"old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support"

You do realise that XP support has been extended to 2014. Time to get up to date methinks ;-)

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/06/26/windows-xp-support-extended-until-2014
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

As to them trying to push Win7 over existing OS's, of course they will. It's funny how MS are the only ones that keep being charged over anti-competitive behaviour, whereas Apple and others don't have to conform to the same rules.

Yea, but I meant, XP won't be getting regular updates anymore, I forget what the term Misocroft use for it atm..



And yea, Apple is way worse than MS about "anti-competitiveness" but everyone likes to take a **** on MS so that's ok it seems.
Boogle 4th June 2009, 15:53 Quote
Isn't that 'extended support' though? ie. only security fixes, no bug fixes outside of those paid for by large corps. Certainly no new functionality and other nice updates.
n3mo 4th June 2009, 16:21 Quote
Vista or 7 on a netbook just cripple the whole idea. What's the use of a netbook that takes several minutes to boot and works slower than my mother drives her car (and believe me, she drives slowly)?
Jipa 4th June 2009, 16:26 Quote
If all the hype is to be believed, Win 7 isn't going to be slower than your mother.. Not by much, atleast. There should also be a slimmed-down netbook edition AFAIK.

The only problem being, 7 isn't around yet. MS: just **** you, the limitations are ridiculous and you know it is only going to make customers angry. Wouldn't it be nice if MS couldn't decide what can and can't be on the feature list of a netbook... Or any complete build, for that matter.
xaser04 4th June 2009, 16:37 Quote
I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

Actually more to the point why are microsoft allowed to dictate what hardware their OS is to be installed on (ie limiting certain machines to 1GB of memory etc). Surely it should not be up to them?
I-E-D 4th June 2009, 17:01 Quote
That's Microsoft being monopolising again then. I'm guessing when (or if) google bring out a browser, Microsoft will get hammered. Chrome is easily better than IE, so why wont the rest of the OS be better than XP?
The Bodger 4th June 2009, 17:09 Quote
Microsoft laying down terms like this is simply ridiculous. I fail to see why they are doing it when they know that Vista is too bloated and sluggish to go on the machines that now cannot run Windows XP either. At the very least they should be holding back on this sort of action at least until Windows 7 is out, in order to give computer manufacturers a realistic alternative?

Anyway - as others have said, why is Microsoft even allowed to lay down terms like this? It is as crazy as buying a new £50 stereo for a car, then being told it is illegal to fit it because the car is a Ferrari - sorry, the car is too fast for that stereo, you have to install the £100 stereo instead...

The mind boggles.

I know that Microsoft want to make more money, but doing this will just upset manufacturers and customers; not a good move in the longer term. There are alternatives to Microsoft, after all.
Faulk_Wulf 4th June 2009, 18:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
How is it anti-competitive if they limit what an old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support gets installed on? They're likely trying to push Windows 7 rather than XP.


If that's anti-competitive then what do you call Apple limiting OSX to Apple approved software..?

Because if you pay for the license who the frig cares what its put on. People have put linux on almost EVERYTHING with a processor. If they sell X thousands of licenses to Netbook manufacturers why would they care what it was put on? Money is money.

I think this is the stupidest load of crock I have ever friggin' read, and I have read articles featuring Jack Thompson. This is OBVIOUSLY anti-competitive. Microsoft is trying to sink Netbooks, and it knows all it has to do is just not support them.

Apple won't pick them up, I don't think OSX is compatible to any Netbook out there, and sadly the "Linux-thing" didn't take off. (How can someone not figure out Ubuntu? Maybe the main stream version should have (sincerely) had a tutorial video disc? But it can run open office and firefox, what else does an average user need?)

To say the least I'm livid about this. I hope MSI decides to stand up and slap the **** out of them rather then take this. They have a nice rig going even if it is a bit pricey for a Netbook. I suspect most of that cost is in the SSD. (How big is it anyway? Honestly, you could just stick what amounts to an 8gb E-sata thumb-drive in there and save a load.)

/rant :(
DXR_13KE 4th June 2009, 18:08 Quote
maybe this will fuel the adoption of linux for these machines....
DarkLord7854 4th June 2009, 18:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

Actually more to the point why are microsoft allowed to dictate what hardware their OS is to be installed on (ie limiting certain machines to 1GB of memory etc). Surely it should not be up to them?

Apple does it, I don't see you complaining about it though. It's their OS, they do what they want with it. There's plenty of other choices in OSes, you can always install Xp on there yourself anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n3mo
Vista or 7 on a netbook just cripple the whole idea. What's the use of a netbook that takes several minutes to boot and works slower than my mother drives her car (and believe me, she drives slowly)?

You should read about, and test out Windows 7 before making an uneducated post about it ;)

Windows 7 is as fast, and sometimes faster, than XP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf
Because if you pay for the license who the frig cares what its put on. People have put linux on almost EVERYTHING with a processor. If they sell X thousands of licenses to Netbook manufacturers why would they care what it was put on? Money is money.

I think this is the stupidest load of crock I have ever friggin' read, and I have read articles featuring Jack Thompson. This is OBVIOUSLY anti-competitive. Microsoft is trying to sink Netbooks, and it knows all it has to do is just not support them.

Apple won't pick them up, I don't think OSX is compatible to any Netbook out there, and sadly the "Linux-thing" didn't take off. (How can someone not figure out Ubuntu? Maybe the main stream version should have (sincerely) had a tutorial video disc? But it can run open office and firefox, what else does an average user need?)

To say the least I'm livid about this. I hope MSI decides to stand up and slap the **** out of them rather then take this. They have a nice rig going even if it is a bit pricey for a Netbook. I suspect most of that cost is in the SSD. (How big is it anyway? Honestly, you could just stick what amounts to an 8gb E-sata thumb-drive in there and save a load.)

/rant :(

So put linux on it instead of Windows.. Apple limit their OS intentionally by limiting the hardware it's compatible on, you can get it to run on just about anything, providing you're willing to search for drivers or make your own.

Microsoft can do what they please with their OS, they're not forcing you to buy it, and like you said, Linux has been put on everything known to man, so what's the issue?

If you want XP, you get a netbook, laptop, or desktop which is licensed to run it.

On the flip side, this affects ONE netbook, just 1, and AFAIK there aren't any others planned anyways, so what's the big deal? It's not like a whole lineup of netbooks are now unable to run XP. Besides, XP sales are being ended soon anyways isn't it?
Skiddywinks 4th June 2009, 18:58 Quote
I think the people who are blowing their tops about this are over reacting. It is no worse than what Apple does.

Sure, I have no idea why they have done this, but it affects only one nettop at the end of the day. Let's not get ahead of ourselves people.
DougEdey 4th June 2009, 19:01 Quote
Article is wrong, the Lenovo S10 contains SSD & Rotary, also comes with XP
geekboyUK 4th June 2009, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
So put linux on it instead of Windows.

I do wish there was an OS free option as some Netbooks are XP only and rather not pay for the licence.
HourBeforeDawn 4th June 2009, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3mo
Vista or 7 on a netbook just cripple the whole idea. What's the use of a netbook that takes several minutes to boot and works slower than my mother drives her car (and believe me, she drives slowly)?

wow talk about making a statement without even seeing it for yourself, I am currently using Windows 7 on my 1000he and it boots up and shuts down just as fast as the XP installation that was on there BUT is more responsive then XP was on the 1000he, yes it uses a little bit and I mean little bit more Ram then XP but boohoo not enough to make it an issue. So ya Windows 7 on a netbook has been an amazing experience more so for me that I went ahead and removed my Ubuntu installation as Win 7 was doing a better job doing everything I needed then Ubuntu did, same goes for XP.
yodasarmpit 4th June 2009, 20:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

I'm in agreement with xaser04 here, I don't understand Microsoft's reasoning behind this move.
HourBeforeDawn 4th June 2009, 20:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

I'm in agreement with xaser04 here, I don't understand Microsoft's reasoning behind this move.

Probably because Vista and Win 7 were "designed" for use with SSD. I mean its a vague statement but thats what they mentioned once in the past that it would utilize the tech better but could be one way of marketing to the newer OSes.
n3mo 4th June 2009, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn


wow talk about making a statement without even seeing it for yourself, I am currently using Windows 7 on my 1000he and it boots up and shuts down just as fast as the XP installation that was on there BUT is more responsive then XP was on the 1000he, yes it uses a little bit and I mean little bit more Ram then XP but boohoo not enough to make it an issue. So ya Windows 7 on a netbook has been an amazing experience more so for me that I went ahead and removed my Ubuntu installation as Win 7 was doing a better job doing everything I needed then Ubuntu did, same goes for XP.

It's up to personal taste. I tested the newest build on a fast machine and on my subnotebook (faster than a netbook, but not a real powerhorse) and on both it felt sluggish and less responsive than XP. Even when optimized and with most of the bloat turned off or cut out, Win7 had this soft, spongy feeling. It wasn't slow, but slower than expected. Boot time was exactly two times worse than XP, 3D performance was about 7-10% worse. I don't see any advantage of using 7 over XP aside from shiny, transparent window borders which also annoy me beacause they're too thick and take too much space ;)
HourBeforeDawn 4th June 2009, 20:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3mo


It's up to personal taste. I tested the newest build on a fast machine and on my subnotebook (faster than a netbook, but not a real powerhorse) and on both it felt sluggish and less responsive than XP. Even when optimized and with most of the bloat turned off or cut out, Win7 had this soft, spongy feeling. It wasn't slow, but slower than expected. Boot time was exactly two times worse than XP, 3D performance was about 7-10% worse. I don't see any advantage of using 7 over XP aside from shiny, transparent window borders which also annoy me beacause they're too thick and take too much space ;)

hmm then I would have to question if you installed it correctly as well as setup the drivers correctly and so on, or was this on the Beta and not RC1, big difference between the two.
We have it installed at work on a crappy low-end notebook and it runs smooth and fast, as well as on one of our gaming rigs and then their is my netbook and my HTPC, all of which showed no slow down in comparisson to XP, it performed on par or faster, sure gaming isnt as up to par with XP but umm duh factor the drivers are still new and in their early developmental phase, they will only get better with time.

So ya I have to question your method of installation, version, and testing because I havent seen anything along the lines of what you mentioned at all with the exception that the game performance isnt as high but still more then decent.
Faulk_Wulf 4th June 2009, 22:06 Quote
TL;DR

I appologize for my spasm, but I think for the AVERAGE consumer, what Windows is doing is hurting both Hardware Developers (in this case) and Software / OS Developers (in others). I do not think that OS creators should restrict what devices their OS is put on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
Apple does it, I don't see you complaining about it though. It's their OS, they do what they want with it. There's plenty of other choices in OSes, you can always install Xp on there yourself anyways.
You should read about, and test out Windows 7 before making an uneducated post about it ;)
Windows 7 is as fast, and sometimes faster, than XP.
So put linux on it instead of Windows.. Apple limit their OS intentionally by limiting the hardware it's compatible on, you can get it to run on just about anything, providing you're willing to search for drivers or make your own.
Microsoft can do what they please with their OS, they're not forcing you to buy it, and like you said, Linux has been put on everything known to man, so what's the issue?
If you want XP, you get a netbook, laptop, or desktop which is licensed to run it.
On the flip side, this affects ONE netbook, just 1, and AFAIK there aren't any others planned anyways, so what's the big deal? It's not like a whole lineup of netbooks are now unable to run XP. Besides, XP sales are being ended soon anyways isn't it?

Ok ok. So I let my emotions get the best of me.

It is true that I have not followed Windows 7, nor was I aware that there were custom drivers to get OSX to work on more then a very narrow category of parts. I do apologize.

The rant wasn't on my own behalf so much as that of the average user. I like the IDEA of a netbook. It is not a power-user's computer. But thinking about taking college classes again I'd rather carry a 10" little netbook to do classwork on then my 17" monstrosity that can almost game.

My point/confusion is actually over two main issues:
The average user is NOT going to install a different OS. (Or maybe even know HOW!) They want to open it up, turn it on, and have it work. They don't care if its the drivers, the os, or magical pink ponies inside-- as long as it works.

The second issue is that while I'm not an anti-MS zealot, I do believe that they do hamper competition sometimes. While this instance isn't pushing Linux / OSX / some-other OS out of the way for their own, this one is hurting hardware producers.

It is only one netbook. But how many more might have adapted hybrid-storage if this had been shown to be profitable? THAT'S my main beef. The hybrid solution was progressive and ingenious. (You can argue that but MSI still brought the first to market in the Netbook world AFAIK.)

You are right that no one looks at Apple this way and that its a double-standard, but its not the way things SHOULD be. People should be just as upset that Apple's OS is restricted to certain hardware, or use a "better" OS (ie: compatible with more hardware). Now I don't know the Apple vs Other OS percentages for what's on a machine in a random sample, but I'm pretty sure that's why a lot of people use Windows. For better or worse its an "industry standard".

---

Apple could probably do some pretty awesome stuff with their OS if they opened it up to more hardware. I get that the narrow hardware is what makes it so rock-solid, but even if you opened up just a bit more-- top end graphics cards for examples, it would catapult what they already are good at (graphic design / video editing / etc).

Linux might have a chance but they need more exposure. This is very hard for a non-profit organization. Ubuntu has the best shot here. However you would have to ship out tons of LiveCD's, and maybe set up kiosks/stores that show off just what it is and how it is. Or a commercial campaign. If they could show the public how to use Linux the way I have learned it through Glider's articles, I'm sure it'd see a fair amount of use.

Windows is by no means BAD. They didn't get on "every PC" because they sucked. Windows ME and Vista aside, they have had pretty amazing OS's. But it might be a fair bet that most of the reason they continue to dominate is simply because the gaming market is almost entirely on Windows. (WINE/Cedega, I know they exist but still... It isn't as good as playing natively on Windows in my experience.)

I'm not meaning to bash Windows or hold the hand of any other OS. Any OS that wants to compete with Windows will have a lot of work cut out, as Windows has managed to stay on top this long.
The_Beast 4th June 2009, 22:25 Quote
That's a lot for just a netbook but it is cool with SSD and a regular HDD
DarkLord7854 5th June 2009, 00:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf
TL;DR

I appologize for my spasm, but I think for the AVERAGE consumer, what Windows is doing is hurting both Hardware Developers (in this case) and Software / OS Developers (in others). I do not think that OS creators should restrict what devices their OS is put on.




Ok ok. So I let my emotions get the best of me.

It is true that I have not followed Windows 7, nor was I aware that there were custom drivers to get OSX to work on more then a very narrow category of parts. I do apologize.

The rant wasn't on my own behalf so much as that of the average user. I like the IDEA of a netbook. It is not a power-user's computer. But thinking about taking college classes again I'd rather carry a 10" little netbook to do classwork on then my 17" monstrosity that can almost game.

My point/confusion is actually over two main issues:
The average user is NOT going to install a different OS. (Or maybe even know HOW!) They want to open it up, turn it on, and have it work. They don't care if its the drivers, the os, or magical pink ponies inside-- as long as it works.

The second issue is that while I'm not an anti-MS zealot, I do believe that they do hamper competition sometimes. While this instance isn't pushing Linux / OSX / some-other OS out of the way for their own, this one is hurting hardware producers.

It is only one netbook. But how many more might have adapted hybrid-storage if this had been shown to be profitable? THAT'S my main beef. The hybrid solution was progressive and ingenious. (You can argue that but MSI still brought the first to market in the Netbook world AFAIK.)

You are right that no one looks at Apple this way and that its a double-standard, but its not the way things SHOULD be. People should be just as upset that Apple's OS is restricted to certain hardware, or use a "better" OS (ie: compatible with more hardware). Now I don't know the Apple vs Other OS percentages for what's on a machine in a random sample, but I'm pretty sure that's why a lot of people use Windows. For better or worse its an "industry standard".

---

Apple could probably do some pretty awesome stuff with their OS if they opened it up to more hardware. I get that the narrow hardware is what makes it so rock-solid, but even if you opened up just a bit more-- top end graphics cards for examples, it would catapult what they already are good at (graphic design / video editing / etc).

Linux might have a chance but they need more exposure. This is very hard for a non-profit organization. Ubuntu has the best shot here. However you would have to ship out tons of LiveCD's, and maybe set up kiosks/stores that show off just what it is and how it is. Or a commercial campaign. If they could show the public how to use Linux the way I have learned it through Glider's articles, I'm sure it'd see a fair amount of use.

Windows is by no means BAD. They didn't get on "every PC" because they sucked. Windows ME and Vista aside, they have had pretty amazing OS's. But it might be a fair bet that most of the reason they continue to dominate is simply because the gaming market is almost entirely on Windows. (WINE/Cedega, I know they exist but still... It isn't as good as playing natively on Windows in my experience.)

I'm not meaning to bash Windows or hold the hand of any other OS. Any OS that wants to compete with Windows will have a lot of work cut out, as Windows has managed to stay on top this long.


Hybrid? You really think Hybrid is going to last more than a year or two? SSD prices are constantly falling, as are HD prices, what's more, more and more devices are constantly connected, some netbooks come with 3G cards, and more and more companies are offering online storage, such as Asus, when you buy their netbooks which more or less axes the problem of storage. Flash drives are also getting ridiculously big, you can buy 32Gbs one for cheap.

Hybrid storage, while neat, won't last very long, it's more of a temporary holdover while prices for SSDs and size increases, in a year, or less, you'll see netbooks with much larger SSDs for the same price as current models.

So 1 model can't get XP, boo hoo. There are tons more out there that do have XP and are small. To take your argument though, your average consumer most likely doesn't even know what hybrid storage is, and if they do, they most likely don't even care for it.


As for Microsoft impeding competition.. that's quite the opposite, MS give you full reign on the OS to install whatever pleases you, you can even install stuff that probably isn't supported by the OS, but you're free to try anyways. You can go through every setting, every registry key, everything in the OS (cept the source code obviously).

They generally also support a wide variety of technologies whether it be software, hardware, cross-OS, networking, etc. If you look at Windows 7, it even supports a REALLY large variety of hardware straight out of the box. All of their products are built with as wide as an availability and compatibility as possible without reducing the experience offered drastically.

If MS denied the hybrid storage, it was likely for good reasons. And if they didn't, then oh well, Windows 7 is coming October anyways, so unless someone was desperate for that 1 MSI netbook, they can probably wait or get something else with XP and a 10" or smaller screen.

And I don't agree on calling Vista bad, but that's a different topic.


The problem with Linux is that it's not always very user friendly and the driver support sometimes just isn't there, and people just prefer Windows. Don't get me wrong, it's a great OS, just people are sometimes too stupid to be able to use it. Why do you think OSX is so popular? Heh.

As for gaming.. well, native DirectX. Nuff' said I think. And yea, Linux can do DirectX, but not quite to the same level as Windows and def not across the same large amount of hardware (yes, I know it's a driver thing, but the point stands).


Apple don't want to open up, they want to be a "premium" line of computers with their noses in the air.


Anyways.. kinda getting tired of this.
thehippoz 5th June 2009, 01:09 Quote
dunno if this was mentioned but why not just buy a linux notebook with the specs you want.. install whatever os you want.. it's not like they're stopping you from installing any version you want.. affects the bundles

and they are starting june 1st (just from memory correct me if I'm wrong) they are offering free upgrades to win 7 for any new computer bundled with vista.. not a bad deal really when you think about it- I'd rather get that bundle than xp right now
The_Beast 5th June 2009, 01:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
dunno if this was mentioned but why not just buy a linux notebook with the specs you want.. install whatever os you want.. it's not like they're stopping you from installing any version you want.. affects the bundles

and they are starting june 1st (just from memory correct me if I'm wrong) they are offering free upgrades to win 7 for any new computer bundled with vista.. not a bad deal really when you think about it- I'd rather get that bundle than xp right now

The full version of windows 7? or just the RC/beta?
DarkLord7854 5th June 2009, 01:41 Quote
Full Windows 7
The_Beast 5th June 2009, 01:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
Full Windows 7

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal
Nicb 5th June 2009, 02:29 Quote
I have a Asus 10 netbook. Xp ran so slow it took two to three minutes to boot. Then once it was up it did not load anything in a reasonable time, and did not play video well at all.

I installed Xubuntu (mini Ubuntu) on it. It boots in about 20 seconds, loads programs as fast as any fast desktop, and has the cpu power to play video perfectly.

I suggest forgetting about having any windows OS on these netbooks.
null_x86 5th June 2009, 02:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigkingfun
How come nobody makes a notebook without a preinstalled OS?

Then all of the MS rules for notebooks could be circumvented?

I just say do them with Ubuntu MID or Netbook Remix and save on the licensing const for XP Home...

edit -not a derailment- any one tried putting linux on an Acer Aspire One? Mom was looking at one, and liked it compared to the others (Dell, HP, Asus, etc...) but trying to load flash was horrifically slow. She wants something small, capable of running youtube or possibly bluray vids with little/no lag... any suggestions
Malvolio 5th June 2009, 03:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by null_x86
Iany one tried putting linux on an Acer Aspire One?

Umm, some of the models do come with linux (I'm typing this on a pre-installed linux aspire one right now), though I don't know if they still offer them. It's nothing special, just a drastically reduced functionality install, but it does what it says on the tin (and even comes with a couple games).

As for windows on a netbook, this same aspire one handled vista ultimate without any issue (and it actually worked better with aero turned on). Unfortunately I only installed it as a trial install, so it didn't last very long (hence why I'm on linux again). But while it was on here, it was snappy as anything (on an 8gig SSD of all things) with loading programs, but saving files was horrifically slow (due to the SSD).

To the original article, I think it all a bit silly. Really, what financial benefit would this be to anybody, ever, under any circumstances? I just cannot fathom the financial benefit this could ever be linked with.

Silly sods.
Bindibadgi 5th June 2009, 04:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
If it wasn't for the painted nails, going on the bangles I'd presume that was Joe's hand.

Or maybe it is anyway.......

That's the Wind netbook product manager, Diana. Say Hi, she reads this. :)
Bindibadgi 5th June 2009, 04:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Article is wrong, the Lenovo S10 contains SSD & Rotary, also comes with XP

Thanks for the update - I'll have to ask Lenovo is they have to discontinue their product too.
1ad7 5th June 2009, 05:20 Quote
this is outrageous, I really really hope all of these company's start sticking it to Microsoft and using Linux I know I will not buy a windows based net book because of this practice...
xaser04 5th June 2009, 08:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

Actually more to the point why are microsoft allowed to dictate what hardware their OS is to be installed on (ie limiting certain machines to 1GB of memory etc). Surely it should not be up to them?

Apple does it, I don't see you complaining about it though. It's their OS, they do what they want with it. There's plenty of other choices in OSes, you can always install Xp on there yourself anyways.



The most obvious difference here is that Apple sell their own hardware and OS as a package and hence can be more controlling on what setups it will run on (in this case nothing bar a system with a Apple logo). Microsoft on the other hand only sell the OS. If this was about a microsoft laptop with a certain OS you would have a point but its not, its microsoft dictating to a third party what they can and cannot install their OS on, it doesn't make sense (why would they care, a sale is a sale? I could understand it if windows 7 was already out and they were trying to push that but it isn't).
Kúsař 5th June 2009, 08:30 Quote
But you can reject Microsoft's EULA, format HDD, get refund and install whatever OS you wish, can't you? At least if it has driver support...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
If MS denied the hybrid storage, it was likely for good reasons. And if they didn't, then oh well, Windows 7 is coming October anyways, so unless someone was desperate for that 1 MSI netbook, they can probably wait or get something else with XP and a 10" or smaller screen.

I would like to know those "good reasons". Hybrid storage might be a temporary(maybe 2 years?) solution but it seems to be really interesting and useful thing right now.
wharrad 5th June 2009, 13:19 Quote
The reason for this is if you look at it from the other side.

Netbooks are cheap (well, they're suppost to be anyway), so the OS has to be cheap. Microsoft doesn't want people with £2,000 rigs sticking on the cheapest OS, so they cripple it for us.




In the words of a certain Russian cat.... "simpols"
null_x86 5th June 2009, 14:07 Quote
I think Microsoft is just trying to monopolize the damn netbook industry, which is illegal in the US to begin with... I just think its stupid, because XP is slow as crap on some netbooks with a z520 or N270 with 1GB mem. Why they are trying to run Vista, with no more than 2gb memory and an atom proccy is beyond me, other than to seriously piss off people. Vista on a sony p series lags like you would not beleive... so wtf microsoft.
nicae 5th June 2009, 17:24 Quote
woot! go linux!
perplekks45 5th June 2009, 19:22 Quote
If you don't want any MS OS on your netbook/laptop/PC but you got it pre-installed, just don't accept the EULA and you can get the money for your licence back from your retailer or MS. Easy, ain't it?

Now stop crying about big bad MS and just live with it. This won't change as long as 95% of the customers don't know what they're actually paying for in any PC related product.
n3mo 6th June 2009, 22:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn

hmm then I would have to question if you installed it correctly as well as setup the drivers correctly and so on, or was this on the Beta and not RC1, big difference between the two.
We have it installed at work on a crappy low-end notebook and it runs smooth and fast, as well as on one of our gaming rigs and then their is my netbook and my HTPC, all of which showed no slow down in comparisson to XP, it performed on par or faster, sure gaming isnt as up to par with XP but umm duh factor the drivers are still new and in their early developmental phase, they will only get better with time.

So ya I have to question your method of installation, version, and testing because I havent seen anything along the lines of what you mentioned at all with the exception that the game performance isnt as high but still more then decent.

I did it just a few days ago, build 7137 (which was released two or three days earlier), with a clean install on a fast RAID 0 array (and on a slow 1.8" hdd in my subnotebook). Drivers were newest from nVidia (made for 7) and native 7 drivers in the sub.
Tested with every version of 3Dmark, Fallout 3, FSX, autoCAD. Boot time tested with a stopwatch - and yes, while 7 shows the desktop faster than XP it is still useless for at least 15 seconds, attacking hdd like mad. Software data encryption is ~10% slower.
Since Vista, the drivers can't use HAL so everything is slower, from 3D to RAID (although not in my case as I use hardware controller), no matter how good the drivers are. nVidia drivers for Vista are pretty mature now and they still lose 5-7% to XP. And let me remind you that 7% is the difference between a fast GPU and twice as expensive GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
If you don't want any MS OS on your netbook/laptop/PC but you got it pre-installed, just don't accept the EULA and you can get the money for your licence back from your retailer or MS. Easy, ain't it?

No, it ain't. I don't know how it's now in UK, but I asked about it in several countries in EU and while they said that I can disagree with MS EULA and install something else (obviously), they won't refund the licence. So basically if not for my friend in Sony that gave me my subnotebook and another notebook for free, without any OS, I wouldn't be able to buy any notebook (as I don't want to pay for something I don't like and use).
Microsoft does exactly what Intel just got fined for - "buy our stuff or don't buy at all".
perplekks45 7th June 2009, 00:15 Quote
Well, buy your stuff in Germany then. :p
I know for a fact it works that way in Germany because a friend of mine actually tried it. ;)
@mro 7th June 2009, 21:49 Quote
Nice mala!
StevieC 11th June 2009, 13:45 Quote
ughhhhh...

Keep it up, Micro$oft. You make the competition look more appealing every time you do stuff like this!

I don't see why you're all complaining about the company we all love to hate digging themselves deeper into this hole. We don't need to punish them, they're already doing that to themselves, if unwittingly. I don't approve of what they're doing, but I figure why gripe when we can just break out the popcorn and watch Microsoft do itself in?
Burnout21 16th August 2009, 20:36 Quote
It seems like a very daft ban! netbooks = Linux, ubuntu for sheer easy of use.

I have been running ubuntu on my laptop for weeks now, a change of OS actually helps me whind down in the evening as XP just reminds me of work, and considering i work from home i need that difference or i go mad!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums