News Microsoft bans netbooks with hybrid storage

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/04/microsoft-no-netbooks-with-hybrid-storage/1

COMPUTEX 2009: In a further bid to fix the netbook industry, Microsoft has banned Hybrid storage with Win XP.

 

If it wasn't for the painted nails, going on the bangles I'd presume that was Joe's hand.

Or maybe it is anyway.......

 

How is it anti-competitive if they limit what an old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support gets installed on? They're likely trying to push Windows 7 rather than XP.


If that's anti-competitive then what do you call Apple limiting OSX to Apple approved software..?

 

For £500 the U115 should be a bloody awesome bit of kit. Jesus.

 

How come nobody makes a notebook without a preinstalled OS?

Then all of the MS rules for notebooks could be circumvented?

 

"old OS which is now on it's last leg in terms of support"

You do realise that XP support has been extended to 2014. Time to get up to date methinks ;-)

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/06/26/windows-xp-support-extended-until-2014
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

As to them trying to push Win7 over existing OS's, of course they will. It's funny how MS are the only ones that keep being charged over anti-competitive behaviour, whereas Apple and others don't have to conform to the same rules.

 

Yea, but I meant, XP won't be getting regular updates anymore, I forget what the term Misocroft use for it atm..



And yea, Apple is way worse than MS about "anti-competitiveness" but everyone likes to take a **** on MS so that's ok it seems.

 

Isn't that 'extended support' though? ie. only security fixes, no bug fixes outside of those paid for by large corps. Certainly no new functionality and other nice updates.

 

Vista or 7 on a netbook just cripple the whole idea. What's the use of a netbook that takes several minutes to boot and works slower than my mother drives her car (and believe me, she drives slowly)?

 

If all the hype is to be believed, Win 7 isn't going to be slower than your mother.. Not by much, atleast. There should also be a slimmed-down netbook edition AFAIK.

The only problem being, 7 isn't around yet. MS: just **** you, the limitations are ridiculous and you know it is only going to make customers angry. Wouldn't it be nice if MS couldn't decide what can and can't be on the feature list of a netbook... Or any complete build, for that matter.

 

I may be missing something here but I couldn't see it in the story but I don't understand why they (microsoft) would care if their operating system was installed on a netbook with a hybrid storage device?! They would surely get their licence money regardless of whether it was on a 'normal' netbook or one with hybrid storage.

Actually more to the point why are microsoft allowed to dictate what hardware their OS is to be installed on (ie limiting certain machines to 1GB of memory etc). Surely it should not be up to them?

 

That's Microsoft being monopolising again then. I'm guessing when (or if) google bring out a browser, Microsoft will get hammered. Chrome is easily better than IE, so why wont the rest of the OS be better than XP?

 

Microsoft laying down terms like this is simply ridiculous. I fail to see why they are doing it when they know that Vista is too bloated and sluggish to go on the machines that now cannot run Windows XP either. At the very least they should be holding back on this sort of action at least until Windows 7 is out, in order to give computer manufacturers a realistic alternative?

Anyway - as others have said, why is Microsoft even allowed to lay down terms like this? It is as crazy as buying a new £50 stereo for a car, then being told it is illegal to fit it because the car is a Ferrari - sorry, the car is too fast for that stereo, you have to install the £100 stereo instead...

The mind boggles.

I know that Microsoft want to make more money, but doing this will just upset manufacturers and customers; not a good move in the longer term. There are alternatives to Microsoft, after all.

 

Because if you pay for the license who the frig cares what its put on. People have put linux on almost EVERYTHING with a processor. If they sell X thousands of licenses to Netbook manufacturers why would they care what it was put on? Money is money.

I think this is the stupidest load of crock I have ever friggin' read, and I have read articles featuring Jack Thompson. This is OBVIOUSLY anti-competitive. Microsoft is trying to sink Netbooks, and it knows all it has to do is just not support them.

Apple won't pick them up, I don't think OSX is compatible to any Netbook out there, and sadly the "Linux-thing" didn't take off. (How can someone not figure out Ubuntu? Maybe the main stream version should have (sincerely) had a tutorial video disc? But it can run open office and firefox, what else does an average user need?)

To say the least I'm livid about this. I hope MSI decides to stand up and slap the **** out of them rather then take this. They have a nice rig going even if it is a bit pricey for a Netbook. I suspect most of that cost is in the SSD. (How big is it anyway? Honestly, you could just stick what amounts to an 8gb E-sata thumb-drive in there and save a load.)

/rant

 

maybe this will fuel the adoption of linux for these machines....

 

Apple does it, I don't see you complaining about it though. It's their OS, they do what they want with it. There's plenty of other choices in OSes, you can always install Xp on there yourself anyways.

You should read about, and test out Windows 7 before making an uneducated post about it

Windows 7 is as fast, and sometimes faster, than XP.

So put linux on it instead of Windows.. Apple limit their OS intentionally by limiting the hardware it's compatible on, you can get it to run on just about anything, providing you're willing to search for drivers or make your own.

Microsoft can do what they please with their OS, they're not forcing you to buy it, and like you said, Linux has been put on everything known to man, so what's the issue?

If you want XP, you get a netbook, laptop, or desktop which is licensed to run it.

On the flip side, this affects ONE netbook, just 1, and AFAIK there aren't any others planned anyways, so what's the big deal? It's not like a whole lineup of netbooks are now unable to run XP. Besides, XP sales are being ended soon anyways isn't it?

 

I think the people who are blowing their tops about this are over reacting. It is no worse than what Apple does.

Sure, I have no idea why they have done this, but it affects only one nettop at the end of the day. Let's not get ahead of ourselves people.

 

Article is wrong, the Lenovo S10 contains SSD & Rotary, also comes with XP

 

I do wish there was an OS free option as some Netbooks are XP only and rather not pay for the licence.

 

wow talk about making a statement without even seeing it for yourself, I am currently using Windows 7 on my 1000he and it boots up and shuts down just as fast as the XP installation that was on there BUT is more responsive then XP was on the 1000he, yes it uses a little bit and I mean little bit more Ram then XP but boohoo not enough to make it an issue. So ya Windows 7 on a netbook has been an amazing experience more so for me that I went ahead and removed my Ubuntu installation as Win 7 was doing a better job doing everything I needed then Ubuntu did, same goes for XP.