backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 37 comment(s) - last by sexp.. on May 15 at 4:54 AM
Microsoft's restrictions for Windows XP on ULPCs gets leaked.

In early April, Microsoft made a lot of OEM and consumers happy with the announcement that Windows XP Home would live on in ultra-low-cost PCs (ULPCs) until June 30, 2010. The rise of such low-cost machines as the ASUS Eee PC -- which primarily runs on a Linux-based operating system -- led to Microsoft's decision to offer Windows XP to OEMs past the already established June 30, 2008 cutoff date.

At the time of the announcement, the only restriction seemingly placed on the reprieve for Windows XP Home seemed to be that the operating system could only be sold on ULPCs. IDG News, however, came into possession of an internal document to OEMs which detail the full extent of the restrictions.

In an effort to protect its Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft is requiring OEMs to abide by the following rules:

  • HDDs can be no larger than 80GB.
  • The screen size for the ULPCs can be no larger than 10.2".
  • Installed memory can be no greater than 1GB.
  • Processors must use a single core and can be no faster than 1GHz. Processors which are severely handicapped by low-clock speeds (a la the VIA C7-M and Intel Atom) are excluded from this restriction.

In exchange for abiding by these restrictions, Microsoft will charge OEMs just $32 for each license of Windows XP Home used in machines sold in developed markets. For emering markets, that price drops to $26. The deal gets even sweeter if an OEM is a part of Microsoft's Market Development Agreement -- this arrangement cuts another $10 off the license cost of each copy of Windows XP Home.

"It allows PC makers to offer a low-cost alternative, and it prevents eroding of pricing and margins in the mainstream OS market," said analyst Roger Kay, president of EndPoint Technologies Associates.

"[Low-cost PC makers] have made some good inroads with open-source, and Microsoft wants to put a stop to it," said a computer OEM official who wished to remain anonymous.

As the official noted, there is no doubt that Microsoft wants to squash any chance of Linux getting a grip on the low-end PC market. There were just 500,000 ULPCs sold during all of 2007 -- that number is expected to rise to 9 million by 2012 according to IDC. Microsoft, however, is much more optimistic and says that between 10 million to 13 million units will be sold in 2008 alone.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
$32
By isorfir on 5/12/2008 8:52:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In exchange for abiding by these restrictions, Microsoft will charge OEMs just $32 for each license of Windows XP Home used in machines sold in developed markets. For emering markets, that price drops to $32.


Something fishy is going on around here...




RE: $32
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/12/2008 8:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that, it should be $26.


RE: $32
By mmntech on 5/12/2008 9:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
Lol. That does sound like something MS would do.

I still think they're being foolish with ending XP sales when it's still selling so well.


RE: $32
By 306maxi on 5/12/2008 10:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not having XP isn't going to be a deal breaker for most people. At the end of the day Vista is nowhere near as bad as the doomsayers say it is. There has been so much FUD spread that people just don't like it because they've been told not to. I think most people who are "forced" to buy Vista will like it anyway so it's no big deal.


RE: $32
By Suomynona on 5/12/2008 10:22:16 AM , Rating: 5
The issue with Vista in this marketspace is about whether or not the hardware is powerful enough to run Vista. It's not just about personal preference or what people are used to, it's about usability with limited resources. I agree that most people won't mind Vista with an average desktop or notebook, but it can be a real dealbreaker in this market segment.


RE: $32
By SiN on 5/12/2008 11:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Your overrating the problem with vista and hardware. It will run just fine with a current 2.0Ghz CPU, some intergrated graphics, 2+GB RAM.

And it isn't RAM hungry, it utilizes RAM differently than XP, though i (personally) would reccoment a minimum of 2GB ram.


RE: $32
By 3kliksphilip on 5/12/2008 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm all against turning threads into an OS war, but I have to say what I've discovered recently.

I've actually been using Vista for a while now. I can't see much wrong with it... but to be honest, there isn't much right about it either. I just assumed it was okay, but I recently went back to XP to play some Age of Empires 2, which for some reason Vista didn't like, and I'm amazed. XP is so much faster. I didn't think that Vista was slow as such (I do have a dual core, Geforce 8 series PC with 3 GB of ram) but XP runs so much smoother. Pictures and videos load up in a fraction of the time and it seems so much less cluttered.

I can get used to Vista by all means, but I have to ask the question 'why should I?'. Currently I see no real advantages to Vista. I liked the automatic error report feature, updates don't prompt your PC to turn off every couple of minutes a,d the search bar in the start menu helps a bit as well. However, Xp is so much faster in comparison. Perhaps it's just this fresh installation of everything, but I feel so much more at home. Nostalgic, maybe. Though I still prefer the XP Sound Blaster X-fi drivers. On Vista the rear speakers reverse in my headphones on Counter Strike (But are fine in every other game).

Has anybody else done the same as me? Possibly the reverse, finding Vista superior to XP?

Thanks for letting me spew out my thoughts.
Vista = okay
XP = ... maybe I'm just more used to it, but I think I prefer it. Vista is bloated in comparison and doesn't really deliver anything ground breaking. I can't think of anything much to add, but as they say, if it aint broke...


RE: $32
By mondo1234 on 5/12/2008 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 3
"Euthanize Vista" is what Wall Street wants MS to do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-sh...


RE: $32
By Belard on 5/13/2008 5:10:03 AM , Rating: 3
This is what Vista is all about. This picture says it all.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/KiLotr/tech...


RE: $32
By Pirks on 5/12/2008 5:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Has anybody else done the same as me? Possibly the reverse, finding Vista superior to XP?
If you play modern big-budget PC games Vista x64 is better than XP - I like the way Crysis x64 works when it can access all of my of RAM (4 GB) - no texture streaming, levels are so beautiful on Very High DX10 graphics, ahhh I gonna come again, please excuse me

Vista 32-bit? Meh, I don't undersnat who'd use that POS, well unless you have some very special x64-incompatible software (that must be business stuff or something similar)


RE: $32
By SiN on 5/12/2008 6:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
That would be because AOE you are playing was made with XP in mind, and coded around the XP graphics logic.

I would not expect a game made with XP in mind to work better on vista.

I should however find a game fully coded for vista to work on vista better than XP. I cant confirm that though, so take it as what should be expected and not what actually happens.

Graphics handling and processing is part of the system but it is not the entire system.

Loads of people feel the way you do, and currently i am still using XP, but a lot also seem to dismiss vista, when a lot don't really know much about the way it is different to XP under the bonnet. And how differently things are processed, or how the systems resources are handled differently.

Personally I find vista to be leaps and bounds better than xp. But i also wont ditch XP. My machine when i build will accomodate both OS and linux.

Lots of my lesser tech savy friends ditch vista, they say it is slow. I try to explain to them about super fetch and the way that things speed up over time. They are not as patient as me.


RE: $32
By Pirks on 5/12/2008 7:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I should however find a game fully coded for vista to work on vista better than XP
Actually, this is the case with Crysis. Its 64-bit version is a pure concentrated orgasmic joy to play on 64-bit Vista (with a powerful enough hardware of course, 9800GTX is a bare minimum if you wanna feel it all)


RE: $32
By sexp on 5/15/2008 4:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft will stop supporting XP i will switch to OSX.


RE: $32
By wordsworm on 5/12/2008 10:02:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I still think they're being foolish with ending XP sales when it's still selling so well.


Well, whatever helps Linux is good in my books.


RE: $32
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/12/2008 10:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
This will hurt Linux, not help it.


RE: $32
By wordsworm on 5/12/2008 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This will hurt Linux, not help it.


What I mean is that those who wish to build their own cheap systems and sell them, but who aren't officially OEMs, will have little choice but to sell Linux. Whatever way MS wants to restrict is an area where the world's favorite free OS has a possibility for growth.


RE: $32
By mondo1234 on 5/12/2008 10:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
(But the good news is that the screen gets to run in CGA mode)
What a waste of time, there will be no optical drive, and it wont be fast enough to run MS Office (which doesn't make sense because MS Office costs more than the device).
Vendors should stick with Linux and Open Office.


RE: $32
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/12/2008 10:04:02 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I still think they're being foolish with ending XP sales when it's still selling so well.

Do you really want to support 3 code bases? No. They are trying to wrap up the XP/2003 code base and move to the Vista/2008 code base. Costs way too much money to maintain that many. You will see the same phase out when Vienna is released, Vista will be phased out.


By Demon-Xanth on 5/12/2008 9:29:50 AM , Rating: 4
...yet MS would charge me $200 for a retail copy.

No wonder I'm still using 2k.