Or to paraphrase, "... virtually all of that growth [of XP] comes at the expense of Vista, which Microsoft once again notes sees much higher rates of return once folks "realize their Vista-based netbook PC doesn't deliver that same quality of experience."
Or that Netbooks aren't powerful enough to run Vista, because they aren't designed to be as powerful as a full laptop, but an older OS, like XP, that requires less resources, runs great.
But then again, how can we bash Vista with that logic?
@Look_Around_You: The fact that Vista runs so poorly on netbooks speaks to how poorly made it is. Mandriva 2009 with Gnome, Compiz and all the latest everything runs better on my EEE 1000 than XP did. No custom kernels, no hacking, no bullshit. You don't like Linux? Fine, not my concern. But to blame Vista's poor performance on the hardware demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Even OS X runs better than Vista on many netbooks, and it's not supposed to run on anything but Apple gear. Face facts, Vista is the new Windows ME.
Sure Vista can't run on netbooks that well but W7 can. So what do you think will happen now that MS has destroyed Linux as an OS and W7 is being released considering people will already pay extra to run an outdated MS product?
Sorry, Linux is alive and kicking, now more than ever, and it's never going to die. Never. It may be a niche desktop OS, but it's getting better all the time. And it's got roughly 2/3 of the Internet server market; I wouldn't call that exactly "destroyed".
As for W7, you never know what these unpredictable people called 'users' will do... maybe they will even be happy to 'pay extra' to have a reliable and familiar operating system that can do exactly the same things as its successor, only with less resources. How peculiar and unheard of that would be, eh?
Question is, WHAT 'market share'? It's not that that 100% was conquered with great effort and then lost. When netbooks were launched, they came with Linux only, so it was 100% because there was no other choice. When manufacturers got the green light to bundle XP, it was only natural that Microsoft's monopoly and market penetration would be reflected in netbooks. There is no difference between desktops and netbooks in that regard: the percentage of people that chooses Linux is exactly the same. Linux (on the desktop) has not been destroyed at all; its market share has simply returned to its normal (and small) percentage. On the server side, instead, things are going quite differently...
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Or to paraphrase, "... virtually all of that growth [of XP] comes at the expense of Vista, which Microsoft once again notes sees much higher rates of return once folks "realize their Vista-based netbook PC doesn't deliver that same quality of experience."
Nice.
Or that Netbooks aren't powerful enough to run Vista, because they aren't designed to be as powerful as a full laptop, but an older OS, like XP, that requires less resources, runs great.
But then again, how can we bash Vista with that logic?
@Look_Around_You: The fact that Vista runs so poorly on netbooks speaks to how poorly made it is. Mandriva 2009 with Gnome, Compiz and all the latest everything runs better on my EEE 1000 than XP did. No custom kernels, no hacking, no bullshit. You don't like Linux? Fine, not my concern. But to blame Vista's poor performance on the hardware demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Even OS X runs better than Vista on many netbooks, and it's not supposed to run on anything but Apple gear. Face facts, Vista is the new Windows ME.
@Look_Around_You
So when Windows 7 comes out, netbooks magically become designed to run the successor of Vista, is that your thinking?
Vista is crap, people, and your maniacal low ranking only demonstrates your ignorance.
Sure Vista can't run on netbooks that well but W7 can. So what do you think will happen now that MS has destroyed Linux as an OS and W7 is being released considering people will already pay extra to run an outdated MS product?
Hmm?
MS has destroyed Linux? LOL.
Sorry, Linux is alive and kicking, now more than ever, and it's never going to die. Never. It may be a niche desktop OS, but it's getting better all the time. And it's got roughly 2/3 of the Internet server market; I wouldn't call that exactly "destroyed".
As for W7, you never know what these unpredictable people called 'users' will do... maybe they will even be happy to 'pay extra' to have a reliable and familiar operating system that can do exactly the same things as its successor, only with less resources. How peculiar and unheard of that would be, eh?
I would call going from 100% market share to 4% market share getting your shit shoved in two weeks past Tuesday. You can call it what you want.
Question is, WHAT 'market share'? It's not that that 100% was conquered with great effort and then lost. When netbooks were launched, they came with Linux only, so it was 100% because there was no other choice. When manufacturers got the green light to bundle XP, it was only natural that Microsoft's monopoly and market penetration would be reflected in netbooks. There is no difference between desktops and netbooks in that regard: the percentage of people that chooses Linux is exactly the same. Linux (on the desktop) has not been destroyed at all; its market share has simply returned to its normal (and small) percentage.
On the server side, instead, things are going quite differently...