MasterPlanSoftware:

Shipping and selling are two different things. I would be interested to see how many USERS there are of linux based eeepcs. 

Currently, it's possible to get them. For ~ six months, it was almost impossible. When a shipment arrived, it was sold out the same day. Seriously.

Like others have said, buying them with linux and installing windows would negate any advantage you perceive here.

Why should anyone install XP on such a device? Given the hardware specs, it's no fun (except for the "because-I-can" geeks).

Linux is improving, and I'd say many distros are ready for home use, in terms of reliability and completeness. Being patient and remaining readily available is the only way to overcome problems like lack of user familarity and software authors not considering it a viable platform to wrap their apps to.

ammoQ:

Currently, it's possible to get them. For ~ six months, it was almost impossible. When a shipment arrived, it was sold out the same day. Seriously.

 

So what? People see a cheap laptop and buy it. How many of those people were thoroughly pissed off when they later found out it was Linux and couldn't run the software they already had around the house? Or the software they bought off the shelf at walmart?

Tricking people into using Linux is not an advancement.

ammoQ:

Why should anyone install XP on such a device? Given the hardware specs, it's no fun (except for the "because-I-can" geeks).

XP runs quite well on crappier machines. Especially if you do the same tweaking you would need to do to a Linux distro like Ubuntu.

ammoQ:

Given the hardware specs, it's no fun (except for the "because-I-can" geeks).

I've talked to a few eeePC/UMPC owners and they all bought the Linux versions to save some cash so they could install pirated XP.  It's also mentioned quite a bit on the web.  Seriously, it's not as unlikely as you think.  I would be shocked if more than half of the people who bought Linux versions stuck with Linux. 

MasterPlanSoftware:

So what? People see a cheap laptop and buy it. How many of those people were thoroughly pissed off when they later found out it was Linux and couldn't run the software they already had around the house? Or the software they bought off the shelf at walmart?

Do you know someone like that or are you just speculating? Because the same people might have been pissed of when they learned that the EeePC comes without a CD-ROM drive. Or the screen resolution is too small for many programs. BTW, the Eee-PC is not just a cheap notebook. It's very tiny and nobody would confuse it with a real notebook.

XP runs quite well on crappier machines. Especially if you do the same tweaking you would need to do to a Linux distro like Ubuntu.

Sure it does, but what would you gain? It won't run your games. Installing any off-the-shelf software requires an additional investment for a external CD-Rom drive. Because of the screen resulution, you either have to install a driver that demagnifies a larger virtual resultion to the device's 800x480, which slows down the system and blurs the display, or you won't be able to reach the OK button in many dialog boxes.

 

morbiuswilters:

ammoQ:

Given the hardware specs, it's no fun (except for the "because-I-can" geeks).

I've talked to a few eeePC/UMPC owners and they all bought the Linux versions to save some cash so they could install pirated XP.  It's also mentioned quite a bit on the web.  Seriously, it's not as unlikely as you think.  I would be shocked if more than half of the people who bought Linux versions stuck with Linux. 

I cannot imagine any ruffians doing this.

Also, I find it funny that I am seeing reports the XP version is actually cheaper than the linux version.

morbiuswilters:

I've talked to a few eeePC/UMPC owners and they all bought the Linux versions to save some cash so they could install pirated XP.  It's also mentioned quite a bit on the web.  Seriously, it's not as unlikely as you think.  I would be shocked if more than half of the people who bought Linux versions stuck with Linux. 

 

That's because you are apparently a MS fanboy, so you know that kind of people. On the other hand, I know the people who dumped preinstalled Windows in favor of Linux. Birds of a feather flock together.

MasterPlanSoftware:

So what? People see a cheap laptop and buy it. How many of those people were thoroughly pissed off when they later found out it was Linux and couldn't run the software they already had around the house? Or the software they bought off the shelf at walmart?

Abso-fucking-lutely.  I do free tech support for several family members, friends and family friends (as I imagine a lot of the people here do).  In the last couple of years I've had several cases of an excited acquaintance coming to me and wanting to buy a cheap laptop or desktop.  Of course, these machines often have Linux installed.  The low price makes them suspicious that the machine won't be "good enough" for what they want or that there is some catch and I have to explain to them that spending money on a Linux-based computer would be a bad investment and that they should spend the extra $100 to get a Dell with XP/Vista.  Now keep in mind that not every non-tech-savvy user out there has someone they can count on to honestly explain the downsides of a Linux-based computer and that not everyone one of them will even be suspicious enough to ask in the first place.  Considering how many tech-savvy people on here will praise Linux and suggest it for n00bs I'm guessing a lot of people who do bother asking probably get screwed over by relatives/friends who are more interested in spreading Linux than helping.

 

I always tell non-tech-savvy people to avoid these computers because they just aren't worth the hassle.  Even if Linux will handle everything they do now, there's no telling if they will want to buy a web-cam or printer or something else in the future that Linux will not support.  Then there's the issue of support for the machine -- if I can't physically work on the computer I will often tell them to take it to Best Buy and inform the techs that the hard drive is failing, etc..  That's enough of a hassle with Windows but for Linux it would be a nightmare.  With Windows I know they are buying into a well-supported, mature and mainstream technology that should do whatever it is they want to accomplish.  It also helps out with learning because a lot of these people have kids who are more tech-savvy than their parents and who can show them how to use Windows.  Those same kids would probably be a bit lost on Linux.  If that person goes to work or an Internet cafe or a library chances are the machine will be running Windows as well, so it makes transition easy for them.  For that peace-of-mind there is absolutely no way I would recommend saving $100 by purchasing a Linux-based computer.

ammoQ:

That's because you are apparently a MS fanboy, so you know that kind of people.

 

Funny, the two people arguing against you both use Linux on a daily basis. 

I know morb's primary OS is Linux, and two of my machines sitting here are Linux.

MasterPlanSoftware:

I cannot imagine any ruffians doing this.

Seriously: So what? It's possible to do that, so instructions on how to do that exist.

Also, I find it funny that I am seeing reports the XP version is actually cheaper than the linux version.

 

Apparantly MS made the XP license cheap enough, cheaper that the additional capacity Linux version offers. Seems like MS is very eager to stop the success of Linux is this market segment.

MasterPlanSoftware:

ammoQ:

That's because you are apparently a MS fanboy, so you know that kind of people.

 

Funny, the two people arguing against you both use Linux on a daily basis. 

I know morb's primary OS is Linux, and two of my machines sitting here are Linux.

 

Can't be true. If you were using Linux, that alone would raise the market share to at least 1.5%.

ammoQ:

Seriously: So what? It's possible to do that, so instructions on how to do that exist.

 

Supply and demand my friend.

ammoQ:

Apparantly MS made the XP license cheap enough, cheaper that the additional capacity Linux version offers. Seems like MS is very eager to stop the success of Linux is this market segment.

 

Haha, ok, then how can something that costs money be cheaper than Linux which is free?

Did you think at all before posting?

ammoQ:

Can't be true. If you were using Linux, that alone would raise the market share to at least 1.5%.

 

Indeed, they have been tracking page hits on TDWTF forums, and arrived at .8%. Considering I use Linux, that makes your market share argument sad.

MasterPlanSoftware:

ammoQ:

Seriously: So what? It's possible to do that, so instructions on how to do that exist.

 

Supply and demand my friend.

There are many similar instructions on the web. How to install Linux on ... all kinds of devices. Specific notebooks, game consoles, iPods. Does that mean anything in terms of market share?

ammoQ:

Apparantly MS made the XP license cheap enough, cheaper that the additional capacity Linux version offers. Seems like MS is very eager to stop the success of Linux is this market segment.

 

Haha, ok, then how can something that costs money be cheaper than Linux which is free?

Did you think at all before posting?

 

You are aware that the Linux version comes with a larger SSD?

ammoQ:

You are aware that the Linux version comes with a larger SSD?

 

Funny. Didn't you say Windows would require MORE hardware?

 

MasterPlanSoftware:

Funny. Didn't you say Windows would require MORE hardware?

Asus announced to sell both version for the same price, but the Linux version comes with a larger SSD to compensate for the lower license costs. Apparantly, those licenses have become cheaper quickly, while SSD still costs the same.

ammoQ:

MS fanboy

 

Even Microsoft's paid "technical evangelists" are not as obnoxious as the average freetard (sorry - Linux advocate).

I know people who dumped Windows for Linux too.  Most of them gave up and switched back after 2-3 months (others stuck it out for up to a year before finally giving up).  On the other hand, I'm going to go out a limb and wager that the cheapskates who bought cheap Linux computers and installed Windows XP on them haven't even thought about going back to Linux.

Aaron:

I know people who dumped Windows for Linux too.  Most of them gave up and switched back after 2-3 months (others stuck it out for up to a year before finally giving up).

 

And I'd bet it's because "it wasn't Windows."

anthetos:

And I'd bet it's because "it wasn't Windows."

 

I like how you seem to think that is a valid argument.

Aaron:

I know people who dumped Windows for Linux too.  Most of them gave up and switched back after 2-3 months (others stuck it out for up to a year before finally giving up).  On the other hand, I'm going to go out a limb and wager that the cheapskates who bought cheap Linux computers and installed Windows XP on them haven't even thought about going back to Linux.

And I know plenty of people who dumped Windows for Linux (myself included) and never looked back.  The ones who went back typically were the ones who just could not seem to do without MS Office or could not live without their video games.  I would imagine that the ones who put Windows XP on the Linux computers never even bothered to try Linux out for a while, thus, never would have any thought to go back to Linux.

So, what was your point? 

MasterPlanSoftware:

anthetos:

And I'd bet it's because "it wasn't Windows."

 

I like how you seem to think that is a valid argument.

 

What isn't a valid argument?

morbiuswilters:

Kazan:

I seriously couldn't care less about market share beyond the fact that some people here feel the need to cut the numbers by orders of magnitude

Bullshit.  Here's a report for the last 24 months: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=90&qpnp=25#  They gather stats on 160 million unique visitors per month and have several mainstream sites like NYTimes, WSJ and TheStreet.  So even optimistically Linux only holds a 0.8% market share of average-to-heavy Internet users.  This neglects all of the Mac and Windows users who surf the web very little, which does artificially skew the numbers for Linux a bit higher.  So 0.5% certainly was correct. 

 

 

go take a statistics class you troll.

 

Hint: there is a thing called sampling bias

WeatherGod:

The ones who went back typically were the ones who just could not seem to do without MS Office or could not live without their video games.

What kind of a sick freak gives up video games to switch operating systems?