[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Who In the World Wants an Android Netbook? here

[shekharc]

What you said are right but the reason is not that Linux is worse than Windows (XP or 7). Try Ubuntu and you will see it rocks better than Windows. The main issue is MS-monopoly. There are many products what business people need but that is available for Windows only. It is not Linux's fault. For ordinary usage (e.g. email, office, web-surfing, chatting etc.), Linux is much better than Windows (yes, better...no viruses, no pop-ups, no malware...mind it). However, when it comes to some specific apps what the makers haven't made available for Linux (e.g. AutoCAD etc.), people are FORCED to use Windows.
I can give u my example: I am a student working on CFD and so, am doing many heavy computing. I don't need Windows for these, not at all. However, I always buy "Windows" machine from DELL to get XP's CD. As soon as I buy, I format the whole machine and install Fedora Linux on these along with XP as a dual boot. 99.9% of the times, I boot in Fedora but am keeping the XP also installed because in case, if I need to run some software not available for Windows, I can boot in XP.
That's the whole point. This is nothing but MS's monopoly that is locking the users in using their XP, even if Linux is much better than them.
Those who don't need to use any specific Windows product that doesn't come for Linux, give a try to UBUNTU Linux. It is a much better product.

[lluisturro]

Far unrealistic David,
I suppose you used the word 'stupid' thinking of those paying for things that Linux users get for free.

[obviocapitao]

> To seriously challenge Microsoft, Android netbooks
would have to be significantly less expensive than comparable
Windows models and even then would need to do something
interesting enough that customers would be willing
to give up Windows compatibility to get it.
[/quote]
How about... ARM netbooks?
ARM netbooks will be significantly cheaper than Windows netbooks, and offers 5 times more battery life than Intel -- an important feature in mobile devices.
So, imagine you had to choose:
Option A: Windows netbook, 3 hours battery life, $300
Option B: Android netbook, 15 hours battery life, $200
What would you choose?

Netbooks were a game changer, and forced Microsoft to compete directly with Linux.
ARM is the next game changer.

[xiromisho]

you know... it's funny you say "Most Linux netbooks are returned." Because so are the windows ones.
I think it's around when the user who bought it suddenly realizes that it's not actually a notebook and can't do anything asside from go online with a wireless connection (some do have eth ports though...)
Also it's around when they use them and feel how slow the device is vs a new notebook/desktop. That feeling of "...this is what I paid for?" creeps in and they return the 300 dollar device, and shell out an additional 200 for a REAL notebook.
I still don't fully understand netbooks, unless they are running a 2.5" hdd or a SSD then they are complete dogs as far as speed is concerned: And yes... noticeable slowness, not that "I have a quad core and this is far slower." No.
More like "I have a five year old notebook that runs circles around this thing." granted the 5 year old notebook is the exact opposite of a netbook but the point is your average user wants fast, snappy, and most importantly, hates waiting for something they just bought to do something.
I used an Acer one notebook, 1GB ram, Atom CPU, 160GB HDD. I attempted, over and over to persuade the person who purchased it to get the SSD. I infomed him how much faster it would be, and that even if the HDD was 160, bigger isn't better. bought it, hates it, returned it, ran windows home.
it doesn't matter what OS you're running on these things, they are going to have a high return rate because uneducated people (The majority of the PC buying universe) are going to buy it, thinking it's a cheep PC, find it's slower than their old PC, and then return it thinking it's broken.

I work at a Staples store, where we sell this things, and I spent an hour explaining to a customer, as she wanted to return the "Defective" netbook because it was too slow to run MS Office 2007...
Also, the manufacters don't know what they are doing. I can see putting a VGA port on a netbook for the purpose of doing a presentation... but there's a Dell that sports an HDMI port, and is a netbook. It's like a Honda Civic with a high quality spoiler, racing stripes, and the stock engine still in place... trying way too hard, and still not doing anything.

[gafisher]

"Which will I choose? Windows, of course. What do you think I am, stupid?"

Well, it's certainly on the table. Your assertions (and Microsoft's, which tend to be the same) are offered with no data to back them up and are both unlikely and irrelevant in any case. Quoting MS' April Fools "96%" figure proves nothing.

According to people I've spoken with in the retail industry, the proportion of Netbook returns is roughly proportional between Linux and Windows based on sales; in either case those returns were almost exclusively based on mistaken expectations that a Netbook was simply a small notebook. The most common reason given was that the Netbook did not include an optical disk drive. A small proportion of Linux Netbooks are returned because they won't run a particular Windows program, which says more about poorly trained sales clerks than it does about the product.

Netbooks are a new product category, superficially similar to and thus often confused with laptop and notebook computers, but in fact intended, designed, built, and highly suitable for an entirely different market niche. Journalists who promote and even share in this confusion are doing both customers and the industry a real disservice.

[Cybershepherd]

Free is in the eyes of the beholder.
Cost of time wasted with Linux software > cost of Microsoft software.
As one who has spent a lot of time with many different OSs and applications, I'll stick with Windows.

[lluisturro]

I might not have your experience with so many different OSs, but I look after productivity as much as you supposedly do. I'm a developer, which puts me in the group of those intrepid users looking for new experiences. Well, I'm not so intrepid at the time of choosing the OS.

About wasted time, you did not move to Vista, i guess.

[dasacc22]

Yeah, your right David, speaking of which, who the hell wants to use firefox and follow those slow web standards when you can use the browser thats been around forever and published by our loveable microsoft. Oh yeah, thats right, Europe.
When your done taking the microshaft you might consider how many governmental agencies have either adopted open source for everyday computing or are considering it for use across the board, like obama forcing industries to do cost reporting on switching to open source within a two year period (which seems hardly realistic but thats another subject).
Mama Jo buys a windows pc b/c thats what she knows. How long do you honestly think thats going to last?
And your thoughts of using that particular windows app, yeah I gotta windows app to run, to bad it doesn't run on windows though. The upgrade path from XP to Vista to 7 is breaking alot of windows applications (my realm concerns music software) so where does that leave me with the windows world?
Microsoft has taken a shot at their own foot.

[mrb186]

Anyone that doesn't take the Netbook's seriously better check out the U100 series from MSI (Newegg, Amazon, Buy.com). For under 300 bucks you get a beautiful 10" screen, 1 gig ram, 160 gig drive, sd/ms memory slots, webcam, wireless b,g,n, a decent keyboard, XP Home, and this thing can be easily overclocked up to 24%. These gems are not slugs. They run OpenOffice and Firefox just as fast as my 4 yr old Toshiba Satellite. Yes, you can get a decent full size laptop in the $400 range but then you're stuck with Vista. These MSI netbooks are no joke.

[maarnold1775]

You geeks amaze me. First you complain about windows and all it's glitches etc, now you have a better alternative (Google beats microcrap any day of the week!)and you won't even give it a chance!!

[hfw10027]

There is one main issue relating to a netbook -- its utility. As someone who is in the market for one and who has recommended it to others, I believe the main selling points are size, weight, and ability to run familiar programs.
For most users, access to the internet, email, and word processing would cover 80-90% of their needs in a netbook. Some would also need spreadsheet, database, and perhaps simple sound and picture editing. The files created by these programs need to be compatible with established programs. The user interface also needs to be familiar.
For these, many of the current netbooks already fit the bill, although, sadly, the market favors Microsoft. For those who need full power in comparable size, notebooks are available, but at 2 to 4 times the cost. Anyone who travels will immediately notice the difference between a cheap notebook at 5-6 pounds and a netbook at around 3.
I believe it is common knowledge that Vista and Windows 7 place much heavier demands on the hardware than XP, and that their performance on the current Atom-based platform would be abysmal. Running either system on a netbook would require a faster processor, more memory, and a more expensive OS. My guess is that this would raise the system cost by at least $100, killing eating into the price advantage of the platform. Moreover, a more powerful platform would also probably cut into battery life.
In short, although I'd love to see a Linux-based system with OpenOffice and an Adobe PS Elements lookalike cut into Microsoft's market share, my guess is that XP will hang around as a netbook OS until Microsoft designs an efficient equivalent.
A suggestion for Microsoft: Why not raise the price of XP slightly and remove the 1GB memory limit you impose on netbooks?
A suggestion for those producing Linux-based netbooks: Why not up the memory and put together a package of programs whose datafiles are compatible with the common MS OS based equivalents?

[yankeeDDL]

I'm afraid the picture painted by this article is right. Afraid because it's a sad, bad picture.
"Which will I choose? Windows, of course.
The author is shortsighted and it's a pity he writes in a website which people do read, as more will be pushed in this direction.
A netbook is a "lightweigth" notebook, with relatively low-performing hardware. Think Intel's Atom, an 8 year old technology (Pentium III) stripped down and underclocked to save power. Now put Windows Vista or Windows 7 on it.
It's a suicide. It should be forbidden, by law, since common sense does not seem to work.
Unfortunately, most people will make the same decision as the incompetent author, probably ignoring that Linux would save $800 in MS Office licenses (if you're stupid enough to put Windows on a netbook, I don't expect you would install Openoffice) and with that, you can probably say goodbye to any chance of doing anything productive on that netbook.

[obviocapitao]

One of the main advantages of Linux in the first generation of netbooks was price.
A $100 difference in a $300 product was enough to make people buy Linux instead of Windows.
And Linux won the first netbook battle.
Then, Microsoft cut the price of XP to $25, and manufacturers started to adopt it. For a $25-$50 difference, people don't bother to learn something new.
And Microsoft won the second netbook battle.
Now we're about to see the third netbook battle.
Linux/ARM netbooks will not only be cheaper than Wintel, but will also offer a huge differentiation factor: longer battery life -- 15 hours or more.
This will be a decisive battle in the netbook war.

[kumvinod]

Well everyone will go for windows.. Because it supports more hardware, has more software and applications than linux .. Linux is of course free.. but then the people who use windows wouldn't mind paying extra to be comfortable.

[Dewcrav3r]

This article is so biased and full of BS, I'm not going to waste my time explaining everything that's wrong.
Granted, it's a blog, the author can say what he wants, but is that an excuse not to objectively present his opinion? I don't see a shred of real evidence that Linux is dead or undesirable, just the author's reality distortion field.
Linux is alive and growing tremendously, quit wasting my time telling me otherwise

[yankeeDDL]

Kumvinod, you may want to at least try to be informed on the topics you write about.

Most popular Linux distros (e.g.: Ubuntu) comes with thousands of FREE software of all types (office, utilities, games, learning, multimedia, ...) already in the repositories. Which means you need to check one box to have the application installed automatically and for free on your PC.

Linux does not support AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop (there's a very powerful application, GIMP, available also for Windows, for free, but is not as powerful), but for the rest you can do exactly the same as you do in Windows and after a very short learning curve, just as comfortably. Probably more, because Linux requires a lot less resources than Windows so the PC is much more responsive and "quick" than what it would be under Windows.

People don't switch t oLinux because there aremany, many people like you and the author of this blog that instead of pointing out how stupid it is to use Windows, even at the same price as Linux, they point out that Windows sells more. Of course it does: Microsoft spends millions in marketing and advertising to sell that piece of crap!

[zachman1094]

All I want in a computer is a decent screen size, at least 1 GB of RAM, 100+ GB hard drive (SSD or whatever if fine for me, whatever's fastest), the ability to run Firefox FAST, and to run MS Office, with a long battery life (upwards of 10 hours)

[shamil]

"Gee, I can buy a Windows netbook or a Linux netbook. The price is the same. Which will I choose? Windows, of course. What do you think I am, stupid?"
Yes

[shamil]

I don't see how you give up compatibility with windows if you use linux or android. Linux programs like OOo have great backwards compatibility with windows.
You can even run office 2007 in linux if you really prefer.
You're assumption of giving up windows compatibility with linux is like saying that you'd be giving up windows compatibility with macos software.