XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: znu@fake.invalid   
      
   In article ,   
    Tom Shelton  wrote:   
      
   > ZnU submitted this idea :   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  Chris Ahlstrom  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:   
   > >>   
   > >>> In article <1lkov7-kdf.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer    
   > >>> wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:   
   > >>>>> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:   
   > >>>>>> The reason that approach worked with netbooks is because netbooks   
   > >>>>>> really were just small, cheap laptops. Once they got a little more   
   > >>>>>> powerful (which was just a natural consequence of technological   
   > >>>>>> development)   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Rubbish. It was a consequence of being pressured to support Microsoft's   
   > >>>> bloatware.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> This makes no sense. Had consumers not wanted netbooks with Windows,   
   > >>> they simply wouldn't have bought them. Netbook hardware got more   
   > >>> powerful to accommodate Windows because consumers wanted Windows   
   > >>> netbooks, as a consequence of netbooks being similar enough to laptops   
   > >>> that Microsoft's advantages in the traditional desktop OS market were   
   > >>> relevant in the netbook market.   
   > >>   
   > >> Not quite, ZnU.  Roughly 30% of people chose Linux netbooks even after   
   > >> Microsoft got into the market.  Microsoft simply quashed them at the   
   > >> vendor choke point.   
   > >   
   > > Look, if you check my ~13 years of posting history (particularly the   
   > > years when US v. Microsoft was going on), you'll see I'm quite aware of   
   > > Microsoft's history of dirty tricks. But I really think you guys are   
   > > seeing a conspiracy where none exists. Most consumers choose Windows   
   > > because it's what they know and there are lots of apps for it. Given   
   > > that netbooks are nothing but small, inexpensive laptops, and consumers   
   > > were already mostly choosing Windows on laptops, why _wouldn't_ they   
   > > mostly choose Windows on netbooks once netbooks became powerful enough   
   > > to run it?   
   >   
   > They were powerfull enough to run winxp right off the bat.  I know two   
   > people that bought one as soon as they came out, took them home, dumped   
   > linux and installed xp.  One guy was running vs2008 on it - and it was   
   > quite responsive (vs2008 is fairly resource intensive).   
      
   Sure. It's sort of hilarious, actually. Microsoft managed to   
   accidentally benefit from not shipping a worthwhile OS update for nearly   
   a decade. The most popular version of Windows in use when netbooks   
   showed up ran on their comparatively underpowered hardware, because that   
   hardware wasn't really underpowered by the standards of 2001, when XP   
   first shipped.   
      
   > I can only guess that even a fairly large percentage of the devices   
   > sold, when they only shipped with linux were converted immediately to   
   > windows machines...  In my small sample group - the rate was 100% :)   
   > Though, I don't think that neccesarily reflects the market as a whole.   
      
   --   
   "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to   
   anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it   
   must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)