<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The iPhone of UMPC Linux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/26/the-iphone-of-umpc-linux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/26/the-iphone-of-umpc-linux/</link>
	<description>Keeping you in the loop with up-to-date Linux news.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: nuna Interested Consumer</title>
		<link>http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/26/the-iphone-of-umpc-linux/#comment-2401</link>
		<dc:creator>nuna Interested Consumer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/26/the-iphone-of-umpc-linux/#comment-2401</guid>
		<description>Wrong Direction -- Windows Classic the Better Choice:

The appeal of these Eee PC type offerings, unlike the much smaller portable devices and their quirky interfaces, is that they are normal Laptop/Desktop computers with familiar interfaces in very portable sizes. A simple web search will bear this out pretty clearly. You will find that many people intensely dislike their GUI's as shipped, and -- because these are standard PC hardware, those who are able -- are retrofitting them with Windows XP or switching the default GUI to the more desktop oriented one. People like having a portable version of their full and familiar desktop with them. The added benefit of a touchscreen is great, but creating yet another entire user interface realm/style just for these sub-compact laptops is misguided and asinine. If a near-standard Firefox browser can be used on these small screens so can a near-standard desktop.

A better route would be to create a very clean and efficient GNU/Linux desktop that is sufficiently similar to the longstanding Windows desktop that most Windows users won't want to be rid of it immediately.

Don't think that Microsoft will ever use Vista on any of these low resource offerings. Microsoft is in a position that it has never been in before. There is now a class of computer that they haven't got an OS for.

They might have to take a lesson from the Coca Cola company and re-run their play-book from a couple of decades ago when they introduced "New Coke", intending to phase out the old formula in short order. Well for those of you who remember, New Coke was about as popular as Vista is now. New Coke was soundly rejected because it sucked so bad (sound familiar--Vista?). Their solution --because the FDA would only allow them to use "New" on the label for a short period of time -- was to use the name "Coke Classic" for the original recipe.

What Microsoft needs to do is to get back to basics with  Windows Classic/(Lite) versions of the earlier, simpler and widely familiar 9x style desktop with modern themes and a cleaned up current NT kernel. If they lost the product activation, WGA's that call home, and end user license agreements that require people give them access to their private data at Microsoft's whim, they might have a decent product to put on these sub-compacts. For regular desktops and laptops as well for that matter. But, in their arrogance, they likely will not do that. So that leaves GNU/Linux an opportunity to fill that customer demand with a FOSS version.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wrong Direction &#8212; Windows Classic the Better Choice:</p>
<p>The appeal of these Eee PC type offerings, unlike the much smaller portable devices and their quirky interfaces, is that they are normal Laptop/Desktop computers with familiar interfaces in very portable sizes. A simple web search will bear this out pretty clearly. You will find that many people intensely dislike their GUI&#8217;s as shipped, and &#8212; because these are standard PC hardware, those who are able &#8212; are retrofitting them with Windows XP or switching the default GUI to the more desktop oriented one. People like having a portable version of their full and familiar desktop with them. The added benefit of a touchscreen is great, but creating yet another entire user interface realm/style just for these sub-compact laptops is misguided and asinine. If a near-standard Firefox browser can be used on these small screens so can a near-standard desktop.</p>
<p>A better route would be to create a very clean and efficient GNU/Linux desktop that is sufficiently similar to the longstanding Windows desktop that most Windows users won&#8217;t want to be rid of it immediately.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t think that Microsoft will ever use Vista on any of these low resource offerings. Microsoft is in a position that it has never been in before. There is now a class of computer that they haven&#8217;t got an OS for.</p>
<p>They might have to take a lesson from the Coca Cola company and re-run their play-book from a couple of decades ago when they introduced &#8220;New Coke&#8221;, intending to phase out the old formula in short order. Well for those of you who remember, New Coke was about as popular as Vista is now. New Coke was soundly rejected because it sucked so bad (sound familiar&#8211;Vista?). Their solution &#8211;because the FDA would only allow them to use &#8220;New&#8221; on the label for a short period of time &#8212; was to use the name &#8220;Coke Classic&#8221; for the original recipe.</p>
<p>What Microsoft needs to do is to get back to basics with  Windows Classic/(Lite) versions of the earlier, simpler and widely familiar 9x style desktop with modern themes and a cleaned up current NT kernel. If they lost the product activation, WGA&#8217;s that call home, and end user license agreements that require people give them access to their private data at Microsoft&#8217;s whim, they might have a decent product to put on these sub-compacts. For regular desktops and laptops as well for that matter. But, in their arrogance, they likely will not do that. So that leaves GNU/Linux an opportunity to fill that customer demand with a FOSS version.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
