Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Microsoft Accommodating Eee With Lightweight XP 386

Posted by Zonk from the accomnodations-for-all dept.
KrispyChips writes "In what could be a first Microsoft is working to create a special build of Windows, just because Windows doesn't run very well on a certain computer. ASUS' runaway success Eee PC is now 'officially' available with Windows XP, but (according to APC magazine) is not exactly a great experience. There are none of the nice pre-loaded apps that come with the Linux version, for example. And XP has some real problems coping with the screen size and limited system specs of the unit. As a result, ASUS says it is going back to Microsoft and working on a special XP build that will be lightweight and more suited to UMPCs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Accommodating Eee With Lightweight XP More

Microsoft Accommodating Eee With Lightweight XP

Comments Filter:

  • Open Source CD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @07:58AM (#23076138) Homepage Journal
    This is where ASUS can come in a kickass, but bundling all the Windows versions of popular open source apps, like OpenOffice.org, GIMP, Inkscape, Audacity, MPlayer, etc.

    Add in a little splash screen blurb that all of this stuff ALSO comes on the Linux EEE, which runs faster, more reliably, etc.

    C'mon ASUS, whatdya say?

    • Re:Open Source CD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bartab ( 233395 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:00AM (#23076164)
      ASUS is trying to get Microsoft's help. Your plan does not make that likely.

      • Re:Open Source CD (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:05AM (#23076210)
        Haha. Looks to me like Microsoft is trying to help themselves here. :)

        New cut-down version of XP when they're just about to drop XP completely for normal systems?

        I smell fear of linux gaining market share. Looks like it's already the year of Linux on the desktop. :p

        • Re:Open Source CD (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Atti K. ( 1169503 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @09:14AM (#23077036)
          Or at least the year of Linux on the UMPC ;)

        • Re:Open Source CD (Score:4, Insightful)

          by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @10:11AM (#23077794)
          Fear? How about just normal business? Yes, they want to keep or grow their market share. That's a shock to you? Really?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by PinkyDead ( 862370 )
      Eee doesn't have a CD drive.

    • Re:Open Source CD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chineseyes ( 691744 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:51AM (#23076730)
      ASUS is a business not an evangelist. They used linux because it was cheap and ran well on the hardware they are trying to sell, not because they want to push some agenda. Every time I hear someone talking about a company pushing Linux on the desktop over windows I think of this woman I worked with who was having an affair with a very financially successful married man. Every few months she would get all excited because the divorce papers were finally coming through and she would be recognized as his wife. Then a few weeks after she would be crying because it was going to be "just a few more months". Instead of recognizing the situations for what it was; She was just a cheap, easy lay and he was never leaving his wife, she clung onto the idea that she would eventually be his wife. Linux on the desktop is the mistress, windows is the wife, big business is the successful husband and unless the mistress puts a bullet in the wifes head the husband isn't voluntarily divorcing his wife anytime soon.

      • Re:Open Source CD (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @09:59AM (#23077666)
        I don't agree with this. OEMs HATE Windows, they would rather have their own system like Apple does. They would love to be able to ship Linux, but Microsoft's monopoly prevents them from doing so.

        There is a decreasing momentum with Windows, however, the EeePC sales without Windows has caught the attention of OEMS and don't be surprised to see more Linux based "small" systems.

        The ironic part is that this is how Linux will beat Microsoft, just like Microsoft beat others decades ago. P.C.s were small and unnoticed by the likes of DEC and Wang until there were too many of them. Linux is doing the same thing to Windows.

        It is a slow process, but in the last 5 years huge but subtle progress has been made. Sooner or later, people will realize they've been using Linux for a decade.
    • First off, Microsoft will not allow ASUS to put open source applications on Windows preloads. Secondly, ASUS isn't dumb enough to put disparaging comments on the screen of a device which is already in the hands of the customer and tells them they should have bought the other model.

      As far as how I see Microsoft moving on this goes, I see a new OS from them called Microsoft Windows CE-Vista for Eee PC or UMP Edition. I doubt they can get XP down to the size which can compete with Linux so putting a new face

  • BWAHAHAHAHA! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @07:58AM (#23076146)
    Man, M$ is running scared on this one...I never though I'd see they day they'd go to intentionally design an OS that works better on a less powerful computer.

    Now, will this OS be generally available? It would be nice to be able to breathe some extra life into some of the slower systems I have here at work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      I like the idea of an "XP Lite" too. But I bet Dell and the other hardware manufacturers (who want to sell you the latest, greatest computer) will raise Hell at the idea of releasing a new OS for old computers. They'll probably raise Hell as it is (since MS has been pushing THEM to get rid of even the full version of XP).

      • Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:17AM (#23076342) Homepage

        I like the idea of an "XP Lite" too. But I bet Dell and the other hardware manufacturers (who want to sell you the latest, greatest computer) will raise Hell at the idea of releasing a new OS for old computers. They'll probably raise Hell as it is (since MS has been pushing THEM to get rid of even the full version of XP).

        Well, the high-end vendors might be pissed at this, that's true.

        But, Microsoft can't ignore the prospect of small, cheap, low-end laptops becoming widespread which are being shipped with Linux by default. An entire market segment devoted to less-powerful machines (which, actually sounds quite cool) probably worries them if they can't play and get people to use their stuff.

        They simply can't find themselves being a company which can't provide an OS for the emerging market in less-powerful machines. Of course, the funny thing is, Microsoft has never been optimized for small resource footprints -- they've always required more resources than you have available.

        I'll be curious to see how well they do this. Quite frankly, Linux and FreeBSD have always rocked on less-powerful hardware, because they can fit into a smaller space more readily. Retroactively making XP less of a resource pig isn't going to be easy I bet.

        Cheers

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hatta ( 162192 )
          It's easy enough that there are 3rd party tools [litepc.com] to do it. I can't see how microsoft would have a problem with it.

        • But, Microsoft can't ignore the prospect of small, cheap, low-end laptops becoming widespread which are being shipped with Linux by default.

          Neither can Dell, HP or any other hardware manufacturer. This trend impacts them every bit as much as Microsoft, although on the whole I think hardware manufacturers should be able to adapt easier than Microsoft.

          For decades we've been subject to the hardware/software upgrade circle jerk. When Vista hit the market millions of PC users, particularly in the enterpri

          • Re:Hardware can't ignore the trend, either (Score:4, Funny)

            by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @09:33AM (#23077288) Homepage

            For decades we've been subject to the hardware/software upgrade circle jerk ... [snip] ... And the cost of the hardware to carry that bloatware created a reverse circle jerk vortex in the minds of many technology consumers.

            I don't disagree with anything you said, other than forcing me to read the words "circle jerk" too many times. That's just ... wrong. :-P

            Cheers

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by turing_m ( 1030530 )
            "Neither can Dell, HP or any other hardware manufacturer. This trend impacts them every bit as much as Microsoft, although on the whole I think hardware manufacturers should be able to adapt easier than Microsoft. "

            I think both MS and the hardware manufacturers have known about this for a long time. The eternal upgrade cycle was driven by obsolescence. The moment that faster CPUs would not obsolete older, slower CPUs because of the lack of killer apps requiring faster CPU speed, the profits would drop off.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Zaiff Urgulbunger ( 591514 )

          I'll be curious to see how well they do this. Quite frankly, Linux and FreeBSD have always rocked on less-powerful hardware, because they can fit into a smaller space more readily. Retroactively making XP less of a resource pig isn't going to be easy I bet.

          It'll certainly be interesting to see what they do. I'd say the quickest thing they can do is kill off all legacy APIs and crufty bits, but I suspect that too much of their own code requires it to function.

          The thing I'm particularly interested in is what they do about OpenOffice. Obviously, there is absolutely no way they are going to want OOo being shipped with XP-lite, but equally, they do need to ship something; but aren't their current "Works" apps basically Office apps with the fancy bits disabled?

    • Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Constantine XVI ( 880691 ) <trash...eighty+slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:05AM (#23076206)
      Yes, it will.

      Oh, you meant in stores.
    • Microsoft designs software for newer computers, not necessarily more powerful ones. In general, new desktops are more powerful than old desktops, but when the market moves in the less powerful but more portable direction, Microsoft will follow suit. And no, this will not be generally available.
    • Not really. They've been designing OSes for less powerful computers for years but in years past they were only really intended for private parties or software assurance customers, not for the general public.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by blackdevl ( 34312 )
        To further comment on this, the OS the parent is referring to is Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PC's which is based off Windows XP Embedded, to be a replacement for the 9x/2000 machines that volume license customers with SA contracts may be using. It runs on less memory and processor and is up to date on patching (as up to date as XP can be). While this wasnt intended to be a full featured os (I believe its more for remote desktop and holding over old hardware until companies can upgrade), I have used it i

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PinkyDead ( 862370 )

      intentionally design an OS that works better on a less powerful computer
      They'd already tried intentionally designing one that works worse on a more powerful computer.

      That hasn't worked out too good though.

  • Why XP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @07:59AM (#23076156) Journal
    The Eee PC is not really being sold as a desktop replacement but more as a portable supplemental computer, and CE already has a GUI that works with smaller screens. So what does XP do that CE doesn't, thta's needed here?

    • Re:Why XP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:07AM (#23076234) Homepage Journal
      You mean other than not compete with Linux?

      Really.. that's the reason. CE is Windows 3.11 with a boob job. You can't pitch that as a Linux competitor and not be laughed out of the room.

      • Re:Why XP (Score:5, Funny)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @09:11AM (#23076986) Homepage

        CE is Windows 3.11 with a boob job.

        That, sir, is one of the most expressive and informative metaphors I've ever seen on Slashdot!! I know more about CE than I ever have. :-P

        Kudos for that!

        Cheers

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Frangible ( 881728 )
        Well, CE is pretty limited and not really a great OS for the Eee PC but ... it's hardly related to Windows 3.11. It's a true 32-bit OS, the only problem is its numerous platform incompatibilities and small software library. I've owned CE devices from 2.0 to Windows Mobile 5.

        I don't think MS would ever say CE competes with Linux in all situations, but it did try to market CE on Eee-formfactor devices once, like the IBM Workpad z50 (which I used to own) and the HP Jornada 820.

        It actually was pretty de

    • Re:Why XP (Score:5, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:07AM (#23076238) Homepage Journal
      It runs native XP apps without having to get a special version.
      You have a whole back catalog running on a cheap UMPC platform.
    • And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.

      And then, with Windows 7 theoretically coming soon, they, theoretically, could use this hardware as a testbed for showing off just how *amazing* the performance of 7 is compared to everything else.

      Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic

      • Re:Why not Vista? Or Windows 7? (Score:4, Funny)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:14AM (#23076324)
        LOL, I just got a picture in my head of some poor bastard being put in charge of stripping down Vista to run on a computer that can't even handle the full version of XP. The poor bastard would be suicidal in a week.

      • And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.

        Because they Realized they can't, the fact that Vista IS a bloated hog coming back to bite them in the ass.

        Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic when it comes to positioning CE in any market...it's theoretically their "embedded OS" but out SAN uses "XP Embedded" as its controlling software, and apparently CE is relegated to basic phone use, down from the PDAs and smaller pseudo-PCs of the late 90s, early '00s (much like the Eee machine, come to think of it...)

        Those smaller psuedo-PCs, like the NEC Mobile Pro line, which were very similar to the Eee sucked because they were: A. Expensive, usually $800+, and B. Could not run standard full desktop apps. The Eee can, which is part of the reason for its success. It can do everything a Thinkpad X61 can do, just more slowly, but at about 1/3 the price, and almost 1/2 the size and weight. The "1/3 the pric

    • XP has the whole backward-compatibility thing going which is both their big strength and the albatross around their neck. In particular, I expect the big draw is running your standard non-hobbled version of MS Office so you can read the files sent to you by other people running it that nothing else can read. And unlike Linux, CE has no mechanism for even trying to run standard Windows apps under emulation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Idaho ( 12907 )

      what does XP do that CE doesn't, thta's needed here?


      Apart from not crashing randomly all the time and actually doing a halfway decent job at multitasking and memory managament, you mean?

      I can't help wondering, since you had to ask this apparently, whether you have ever used a Windows CE-based device?
    • CE sucks on what is for it 'larger screens'

      ce on VGA is poor...

      CE on larger than VGA resolutions is very painful
      lots of apps & displays & views don't work right.

    • Re:Why XP - Are you kidding? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by miknix ( 1047580 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:35AM (#23076518) Homepage
      Are you kidding?

      I own a Windows CE handheld (HTC Wizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Wizard [wikipedia.org]) full of hardware capabilities and the pre-installed Windows Mobile 5 renders it almost unusable.

      Luckily I could join a development team that were porting Linux to it.
    • Forget CE. What about windows flp? c'mon, this is the first mention of flp here... Wikipedia link! [wikipedia.org]
    • WinCE only supports a subset of the win32 api. Most (think 99%) of the 95/98/2000/XP applications won't run without modifications. However there are ports of office (very simplified) and IE for WinCE, so it would be possible for MS to create a reasonable laptop system out of CE without too much effort. But I guess customers would simply never accept something that looks so similar to a WinXP laptop yet cannot run the same apps. They accept the non-compatibility on a phone, not on a laptop.

  • System design as a whole (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @07:59AM (#23076160) Homepage Journal
    Isn't the problem with XP software that most programs now expect to use more than 800*600?
    ie: this is not just a problem for Microsoft, but for all app developers.
    I know in our shop we stopped really worrying about 8x6 a long time ago since most customers prefer detail over big fonts(low dpi) and scrolling - if we design most windows for use at 8x6 it looks awfully cramped on anything larger.

    (having said that I am undergoing a retraining of sorts as I adapt to my n810)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
      Most software on all operating systems expects that you will have higher than 800x600. Just try running Linux in VMWare using 800x600 resoultion. Many apps go off the screen, and there's no way to even reach the stuff on the right and bottom sides of the window. Even shrinking the window doens't help, because it doesn't allow you to scroll around. This is common on a lot of options screens, that have to be so large, because they present 40,000 different options to the user in a single form.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )
        If you are talking about X applications, try holding you alt key while clicking and dragging on some area of the window that does not have a widget on it. You should be able to move it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      A lot of websites look like crap on 800X600 too. Many designers have stopped targeting that resolution.
      • Which is pretty stupid, since it means that they are effectively excluding mobile users. I tend to test sites on my 770, which has a 800x480 screen (not all of which is available when the dock is visible). If the important information isn't visible without scrolling then the design fails. With devices like the iPhone becoming more common, designing a site that doesn't work on a device with a 3" screen is just stupid.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
          Anyone using a 3" screen and not expecting to scroll when surfing is pretty stupid too. I personally still consider 800x600 into my designs (though I target a higher resolution), but I can understand why designers are leaving it behind. A 800x600 site viewed at the much higher resolutions that most people use today looks like shit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )
          It depends on the site. The designer should look at who the intended audience is before just making a blanket statement that it's just stupid to not design a site for a 3" screen. I've worked on sites that a mobile/handheld user was likely to access the site and the design should take that into consideration. I've also worked on sites where the intended audience would never view the site on a handheld. Designing it so that it looked just as good on a 3" screen as it did on a 21" would have just been a w
  • Almost anything by Microsoft is lightweight. ;)

  • Despite what Microsoft may say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ngarrang ( 1023425 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:09AM (#23076258) Journal
    ...I am going to interpret this as a victory for the common user, the ones who are saying no to Vista and yes to keeping XP or switching to Linux, that Microsoft is admitting without saying the actual words that they no longer dictate to the market place what we will use, that we refuse to keep buying every larger and faster PCs when do not necessarily NEED a bigger and faster PCs.
  • ...a Vista Lite is out of the question then?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by blindd0t ( 855876 )
      Not at all. In fact, you might even see (takes a very deep breath) Vista Lite Home Basic, Vista Lite Home Premium, Vista Lite Business, Vista Lite Business Enterprise, and Vista Lite Ultimate, Vista Lite for the Eee PC Home Basic, Vista Lite for the Eee PC Home Premium, Vista Lite for the Eee PC Business, Vista Lite for the Eee PC Business Enterprise, and Vista Lite for the Eee PC Ultimate. =P

  • the significant factor here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:10AM (#23076270)
    Microsoft has been desperately trying to obsolete XP. They want it over and done with, gone, Vista is the new OS. But now this is introducing XP as the OS in a whole new class of machines, meaning Microsoft will have to continue to support it.

    Now as I understand it, the way Linux is designed, everything is incremental improvements. The kernel is the only linuxy part shared across all linux distros and everything else bundled in is at the discretion of the distro owners. So even if some parts of the distro get a rebuild, there's more incrimentalism here than "chuck the baby with the bathwater" rebuilds leading to Vista-style clusterfucks. Is my understanding correct here?

    Logically, Microsoft should have stuck with the incrimentalism. If they wanted a full rebuild of the OS, they should have done so, made sure it ran fast on the hardware out at the time of release, and included a VM-bundled copy of XP to provide backwards compatibility, the way OSX comes with a copy of OS9.

    What I'm seeing here is Microsoft is forced to keep XP around longer which means there's less and less reason for people to think about moving to Vista. With all of the web 2.0 apps and things like terminal services, the laptop becomes a powerful dumb terminal. I've seen laptops that crawl running normal apps run like greased lighting once an rdp session is open, they can handle the client just fine. So the Vista upgrade strategy, already suffering from massive consumer blowback, is struck another blow. XP remains viable and on the market and Vista remains the "Now why the hell would I want to do that to myself?" OS. XP will continue to sell as machines wear out but there will not be the huge windfall of the entire install base making a migration to a brand new OS over the next several years. Seems like a proper marketing disaster here. Interesting.
    • Your understanding of Linux is correct. Build everything in little parts, and make every little part do it's own thing well. Even the kernel is modular. If you don't have multiple processors, don't build in support for it, and your kernel image will end up smaller. Same with a lot of other features. Sometimes, certain parts of Linux are revamped. Take for instance KDE4. It was basically a complete rewrite of KDE. But they did it the right way. They made sure it was efficient from the beginning, and

    • Microsoft has been desperately trying to obsolete XP. They want it over and done with, gone, Vista is the new OS. But now this is introducing XP as the OS in a whole new class of machines, meaning Microsoft will have to continue to support it.

      Of course, the problem for MS is, they couldn't run on smaller hardware when that was new hardware. Microsoft has always built their stuff to require a fair amount of resources with the expectation everyone should be upgrading soon.

      I think it's going to be awfully dif

    • incrimentalism?

      incrimentalism?

      Freudian slip, or intentional humour?

      Either way, I salute you :o)

    • Logically, Microsoft should have stuck with the incrimentalism. If they wanted a full rebuild of the OS, they should have done so, made sure it ran fast on the hardware out at the time of release, and included a VM-bundled copy of XP to provide backwards compatibility, the way OSX comes with a copy of OS9.

      Not quite. You would want to make the OS fast on the PCs that are out 1-2 years before release, because that's the only way you'll get anyone to upgrade their current rigs. Else, it'll only sell with new PCs, which you would be getting anyway, rather than consciously upgrading, making another sale that you wouldn't have.
      And, if the OS runs fast on old hardware, it'd fly on the modern machines.

  • nLite anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by silanea ( 1241518 )
    "Lightweight XP" - Hell, that's what I've been using across my rigs for years, thank God for nLite. XP has grown to be a pretty stable OS by now, and if you get rid of all the crap Microsoft stuffed into the system it's actually lightweight enough to be run on low-spec hardware just fine.
    • Microsoft released its own nLite - its called Windows For Legacy PCs. It is an official XP lite, but only available to corporate customers.

  • quite nice though (Score:5, Informative)

    by atamagabakkaomae ( 1241604 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:17AM (#23076346) Homepage
    I just bought the Eee with Windows a few days ago here in Tokyo. Actually I havent really closely followed the story, but I think I already saw it here in the stores with Windows XP at least 1.5 month ago.

    Anyway, just to comment on the usability: With the preconfigured Windows setup the small screen is really not used to the optimum. But if you tweak a little bit (like hiding the startbar, setting the Desktop environment to maximum performance etc.) things turn out to be quite ok. I also installed the 'hacked' scaling video driver, which works nicely and allows me to run my VJing application at 1024x768. So far without crash.

    I would have preferred to buy the Linux version of this machine, but couldn't get it here at Big Camera. So the Windows version was more of a second choice. No proper command line but, anyway, I dont regret it.

    Oh, and Microsoft/Asus does deliver some bundled stuff with the machine. Some LiveBlabla (office suite or something). I uninstalled it without looking at it though (for openoffice).

    To conclude I dont think the normal Windows XP is such an unpleasant experience on the Eee. Of course a version with a smaller harddisk footprint might be nice.

    • I would have preferred to buy the Linux version of this machine, but couldn't get it here at Big Camera. So the Windows version was more of a second choice. No proper command line but, anyway, I dont regret it.
      Why not just install Linux on it? Puppeee and/or eeeXubuntu both work great. And with SquashFS/UnionFS you end up with plenty of disk space.

  • Lightweight XP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:20AM (#23076382) Journal
    A lightweight version of Windows XP sounds like a wonderful idea. Perhaps they could then port it to desktop computers so they will be really fast!
    (reality sinks in)
    Wait, standard XP was lightweight when it first came out. It was also horribly insecure, that's why the service packs came out. The service packs made XP slower and of course your going to need an antivirus...

    Never mind, it's a horrible idea. They might as well start from scratch on a whole new OS.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nimey ( 114278 )

      standard XP was lightweight when it first came out
      No it wasn't. People complained about how slow XP was versus 98SE, because it was. You could use XP Gold + antivirus on 128MB of RAM, but it wasn't especially pleasant.

      Lighter than it is now, I could see, but not lightweight for back then.

    • Windows XP Embedded (Score:3, Informative)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )
      Microsoft has offered a product called Windows XP Embedded [microsoft.com] for a long time. It lets hardware vendors basically roll their own version of XP to suit the requirements of their device. They can take out this or that, assume a smaller screen resolution, or what-have-you. A tool that ships with the product cooks up an install image to their specifications, et voila!

      I don't see anything particularly revolutionary about Microsoft helping Asus out with a customized version of Windows for the Eee PC when they routin

  • ...first? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SilentBob0727 ( 974090 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:22AM (#23076398) Homepage

    In what could be a first Microsoft is working to create a special build of Windows
    What the hell was Windows CE?
    What's running on the XBox?
    Is OP being facetious or an idiot?
  • Microsoft doesn't have to work that hard! There are plenty of stripped-down versions of WindowsXP available through "The Pirate Bay" today. I'm sure quite a few versions there will be more than acceptable on the EeePC.

    But, if they don't use what's there, what they make will end up there... so either way...

  • This (Windows FLP) already exists! (Score:4, Funny)

    by PC and Sony Fanboy ( 1248258 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:34AM (#23076504) Journal
    Microsoft already has a stripped down version of XP shipping to corporate customers.

    They'll change the login screens, and BOOM! Its XPeee. (or eeeXP, whatever)
  • what I want to know is... how does this effect the price?

    I mean presumably there is a windows cost added on, and with Linux/Win being sold side by side this might finally get the consumers to see something that only us geeks have been that knowledgeable about: ie, the windows tax.

    I've had mine since they came out, and I will not be dirtying it with windows...

  • Eee pc can do without XP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wildem ( 1267822 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @09:04AM (#23076898)
    I've been using my Eee pc for a few months without a hitch. The standard OS is good, plus installing something like Ubuntu is a breeze. I've had random people asking me to show them how to use it, where they can buy it and so on. Nobody , and I mean nobody has asked me : Can I install windows on it ?

    In my point of view, this article shows how desperate Microsoft is in the light of newly educated consumers making a valid choice to go with a free and friendly OS over their bloat-OS.

    Not to take anything away from XP, as it has its place in the desktop arena and runs just fine for me as a gaming rig.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close