Why Don’t Linux-based Netbooks Have the Same H/W as Windows Ones?
Our friends over at Ostatic have posed a good question, one I’ve thought about in the past. They are looking at the feasibility of Android-based netbooks, something we’ve covered here, and give a good case for open source netbooks. The problem they point out is that such netbooks, often running some flavor of Linux, usually have lesser hardware components than Windows-based netbooks.
Of course, there’s that other sticking point. Windows and Linux netbooks are not created equal. Windows models (whether needed or not) tend to have more RAM factory-installed, and often, larger hard drives (some ASUS EeePC models are exceptions to the hard drive rule). Windows XP might require the heftier specs to run as well as the less beefy Linux counterparts — but there’s certainly the feeling that purchasing a Linux machine means missing out on the heftier hardware. Both versions of a given netbook might fit the bill, but as someone who prefers Linux, I’d think twice about shelling out a lesser amount of cash when an extra $50 to $75 could get me a machine with better system specs — operating system be damned. I’ll install Netbook Remix myself, then.
This is a very valid observation, usually when an OEM offers both a Linux-based and a Windows-based netbook model the price differential is usually not that great. This is often over-shadowed by the lesser hardware components in the Linux models that make them less of a deal. Consumers looking for a good deal will often go with the slightly more expensive Windows model to get much better memory, hard drive, etc. What’s up with that?
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
By and large, the OEMs only offer the Linux option to keep costs down. It makes little sense for them to offer a higher-cost model with the low- to no-cost OS, particularly since there’s no brand appeal as there is with Windows. People will buy generics and no-names to save money, but if price is the same, generally they’ll go with a brand.
What nonsense! The first netbook (first EEE) ran Linux and sold wildly. THEN and ONLY THEN did Microsoft make a full-court press to get Windows on them. The presence of Windows on ANY netbook is due to an intensive campaign coupled with a complete about-face on Vista.
It would not surprise me to find that parent is an astroturfer and that phrases like “generics and no-names” reflect a current coordinated Microsoft anti-Linux tactic. This tactic would probably work if Linux were a firm rather than a community. Microsoft does not know how to destroy a community.
Pfft. So says the guy who obviously doesn’t know what a brand is. Linux is not a brand. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Android, those are brands. And since you didn’t cite it, I’m guessing you don’t even know off the top of your head the flavor of Linux that runs on the Eee PC. Shows what brand power that OS has. You’ve practically proven my point.
Also, the first Eee was a low-cost PC, which is why they launched with Linux, and there was no comparable Windows option, so people did buy the no-name (even Asus was not a consumer brand at the time) to save money. The Linux version lost considerable traction after comparably priced Windows-based netbooks hit the market. What you call “nonsense” is actually recorded history.
Dollar for dollar, its better to get the one with Windows XP. Sometimes you can even pickup a Netbook for 299.99 with Win XP and good amount of hardware included, like more RAM, hard drive etc…
I’ve seen some cases where it’s the opposite. Since ULCPCs are *supposed* to have lower-res screens, and no more than 1GB of RAM, there have been cases where the Linux counterpart is noticeably better equipped. The Eee 901, for example, had a bigger SSD on the Linux side, and I’m pretty sure that some of them shipped with 2GB of RAM *only* on the Linux version.
Yes, I think you are right — Microsoft forbids using more than 1gb of ram.
“Microsoft forbids using more than 1gb of ram” – never heard of this, where is it documented?
@bruno: http://www.umpcportal.com/2008/07/microsoft-eases-up-on-ulcpc-criteria
@turn.self.off: Thanks!
Profit. In order to deliver an acceptable level of performance, generally Windows XP will require a minimum specification to be deemed adequate. Most of the netbook flavours of Linux however do not require an equivalent specification in order to deliver an equivalent level of performance, therefore, it is more profitable to build a lower specced machine that will deliver performance users would judge to be on a par with a Windows based machine. Also, most purchasers in the netbook market probably will not notice the spec difference when purchasing, or deem it unimportant. Also, who knows what kickback the OEMs’ get from Microsoft for not building machines that outperform windows? Cynical I know….
But the typical Linux-User is tech-savy and therefore will see the difference. It is just that with Windows XP on the netbooks Linux-Netbooks most of the time are like Alibi-products (“Hey, we are progressive, we have a Linux-Netbook!”) with low sales volume.
@w and also allow them to go “we tried but there was no market for linux based products” when the sales fail to pass a goal post or other…
The Windows xP Netbooks come with larger hard drives so you can use VirtualBox to run your favorite Linux distro while listening to your iTunes.
The OEMs probably make more money selling Windows machines, because of all the additional crap they pre-install. Thus, they probably offer a less compelling Linux configuration, so that people gravitate towards the Windows version.
The good thing about having Linux offered as an option is that, if you do get a Windows machine because of better hardware, you know that you can install Linux later with little or no problems.
that’s why a have on all my (originally) win machines a linux dualboot install via wubi (in my case for kubuntu as i prefer kde). win for some sort of general compatibility with the masses – linux for security.
Linux screams on netbooks. You can hardly slow it down, even with less RAM. Windoze is a huge memory hog. Even though Windows is currently on its 7th generation, MS still has not fixed many of its known memory leak issues. Apparently some of the “fixes” would actually break existing MS software so they will most like remain forever.
>Linux distro while listening to your iTunes.
Huh? Why would you use iTunes when Amarok is availabl?
dont you know, itunes is the new winamp. all the cool kids use it as their media player…
dell had a really nasty example there, where the highest spec windows netbook was no more expensive then the low spec linux, after rebates.
and to add insult to injury the linux machine could be maxed out to match the high spec windows version. but then the cost would be higher then the high spec windows one, without a rebate…
and i suspect hereandnow has a point. im sure companies like symantec, ahead (makers of nero), and others pay big for the inclusion of their software (often in time limited form) on windows installs.
this will drive down the overall cost of the windows machine, allowing for better hardware at same price. not that different from the mobile operator taking some of the cost of that new phone, as long as you sign up for a contract that will pay back the cost, with interest.
What do you think of Android’s potential on a Netbook? I think it’s overstated… http://www.last100.com/2009/04/07/androids-biggest-netbook-challenge-hint-windows/
Why go with Android if you can install a full Linux like Ubuntu?