Today the headlines have been about the Eee PC 900 with Windows being cheaper (at least in Australia) than the Linux version ($650 to $500). Additionally, the Linux version will not be sold in retail stores. The story gets even worse when you read some of what Asus has said. APC is reporting that ASUS said “Microsoft has been a longstanding supporter of Asus.” I suppose this could just be innocent press talk, but it sure sounds to be like there is something suspicious going on.

One element of the story, however, has not been reported as much. The Linux version comes with 20GB of flash memory, while the Windows version only comes with 12GB. At first glance, 8GBs of storage should not cost $150, but flash is expensive. Could 8GB more flash memory create a significant price difference?

The answer, in a word, is no. The evidence I can find all points to, not surprisingly, 8 additional GB costing far less than $150. Let me explain my reasoning.

First, there are two issues complicating what would otherwise be a very simple problem. First, there are not many consumer solid state drives. Instead I had to use USB flash drive prices. Second, 12GB and 20GB are both very unusual capacities. Here I had to use 8-16GB and 16-32GB.

I used three lines of USB flash drives. The Corsair Voyager (8GB, 16GB, 32GB), the Corsair Survivor (8GB, 16GB, 32GB), and the A-Data My Flash (8GB, 16GB, 32GB). I will not get into the math here (it is nothing more than subtraction, but it would take up a lot of space and be very boring), but the numbers come out to this. The average price difference between the 8GB and 16GB (an 8GB difference) model was around $38. The average price difference between the 16GB and 32GB (16GB difference) was about $86 (the largest difference was about $100). In other words, the price difference between the models should really only be about $50 at most, even if Windows was free.

In summary, although it is imposssible to have perfectly accurate results, it is quite clear that the Windows version is, in fact, significantly less expensive than the Linux version for what you get. This is unacceptable.

Near the beginning of April, VIA announced its plans to begin offering open-source drivers for Linux and documentation for their devices. Just recently, VIA launced the new site, but, unfortunately, it has only two drivers and those are only in binary form (no source code or documentation.) In response to this, Phoronix published an article asking if VIA’s announcement was just a bluff, pointing out these issues and quoting open-source developers who have found VIA unresponsive in the past.

While the Phoronix article’s prediction that VIA is only bluffing could turn out to be correct, it is far too soon to criticize VIA. They made a step in the right direction, and, even if they did not go as far as they said they would, they should not be attacked for that. If every company that tries to support Linux is criticized and dismissed if they don’t meet every deadline, no one will want to help the Linux community. Cut VIA some slack.

This is not to say that VIA should never be criticized just because they put out two binary drivers. If VIA does not release more in a few weeks, then criticism makes sense. Just be careful not to attack VIA for missing the first deadline.

Also, I am not trying to say that Phoronix was wrong in publishing the article. Although waiting a few more days might have been reasonable, there is nothing wrong with raising the question of a bluff. I just hope that no one takes the Phoronix article the wrong way and starts attacking VIA. That, I believe, is not yet called for.

Yesterday Register Hardware reported that a company called BT was offering a bundle that combined an Eee PC running Linux with a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition. (This appears to have now been corrected.) While this is quite amusing (especially since you only save £1.76), there is another side to mistakes like this: they damage Linux’s reputation unfairly.

Without the bundle, most non-techie users would probably not even wonder if they needed Office. By seeing that bundle, though, potential Eee PC buyers are misled into assuming that they need Office and that it will run on the Eee PC. If those users were tech-savvy, when they realized that Office would not install, they would blame it on BT — but, of course, if those users really were tech-savvy, they would not have bought the bundle in the first place. The point is that the kind of user who might fall for this bundle is likely to blame Asus or Linux for the mistake, not BT, who is truly at fault.

I am glad BT has fixed the problem and I hope it does not happen again. I am tired of Linux FUD being spread due to mistakes like this.

I recently came across a YouTube video created by Blogeee.net which shows both the Windows Eee PC and the Linux Eee PC (I assume each with the same specifications) starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down. It is very apparent in the video that the Linux version is much faster, but, since only the startup is done at the same time for both machines, it is hard to tell just how much faster. I timed each part (starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down) to see what the time difference really was. Here is what I found:

Startup
Linux: 30 seconds - Windows: 54 seconds
Launching Firefox
Linux: 4 seconds - Windows: 16 seconds
Shutdown
Linux: 6 seconds - Windows: 68 seconds

(Note: Numbers are approximate. Firefox start time is from clicking on the Firefox icon to the dialog about starting a new session and then from the end of that dialog to when the windows appears, or, in other words, everything but loading the web page and waiting for the user to click on new session or resume session.)

Those numbers by themselves are impressive, but they get even more impressive when you look at how many times faster the Linux version really is.

Startup: Windows takes 24 seconds longer. Linux is just less than twice as fast.
Launching Firefox: Windows takes 12 seconds longer. Linux is four times faster.
Shutdown: Windows takes 62 seconds longer. Linux is slightly more than 11 times faster.

Look at it, Microsoft. Vista would barely even run on these things and Windows XP is much slower than Linux. This is very likely to be Linux’s first major success on the desktop.

Recently, an article appeared on OSWeekly titled “Everex: The Dell of the Linux World.” The article makes a good point that Everex could be what Dell should have been for Linux, but based on their products so far, I am skeptical that they will succeed.

Right now, what they seem to be is what Dell is now. Full of potential, but so far from meeting that potential. Dell’s big mistake, in my opinion, is mostly not publicizing their Linux computers enough on their site. Even if you are looking for Dell’s Linux PCs, it can be difficult to find them. Everex has not made this mistake in particular, but they have made other mistakes.

Their first Linux computer, that I am aware of, was the gPC. The gPC was an inexpensive desktop PC ($200). Unfortunatly, it had two major problems. First, the software (Everex’s gOS) seemed to have lots of issues. Second, and not the fault of the gPC really, many reviews criticized the minimal hardware.

Next, Everex introduced the Cloudbook. From what I can tell, it was a fine Eee PC competitor, but it never managed to get the hype around it that the Eee PC had and still has.

Most recently, Everex has introduced a Mac Mini-ish computer for MySpace users. I think the idea of targeting a small niche is a good idea, but making your computer look like a beige CD drive from 10 years ago is not a good idea. Also, including a DVI port (mostly used on fancy monitors) instead of a VGA port (used on almost all monitors) is not smart, especially in a low-end PC.

So basically, Everex has a lot of potential, but they keep messing small things up and never really meeting their potential. What can Everex do to fix this, though? Below are some of the things I would do to change Everex if I was in charge.

1. Leave gOS behind and use Ubuntu. There are a number of reasons for making this change. For one thing, it would generate a lot of good press and get Ubuntu fans excited. Another advantage is that Everex’s products would no longer be plagued by small bugs that seemed to be a lot of the downfall of the gPC.
2. Instead of taking a lesson from Apple’s software, take a lesson from Apple’s hardware. Recently, Everex has been modeling gOS after Apple’s OSX in many ways. Instead of doing this, since they would be using Ubuntu, learn from Apple’s hardware. Apple is, after all, very good at making a box look pretty and Everex is a hardware company.
3. Consider dropping Windows completely. Without seeing Everex’s sales figures, it is impossible to know if this is even realistic at all, but a well timed dropping of all Windows computers could really bring the attention back to Everex. Imagine that a few months after introducing some new Linux PCs, Everex dropped their Windows PCs completely. It would excite people and bring the hype back to Everex.
4. Don’t make small, but important, mistakes that could easily be prevented. For example, don’t put a DVI port on a low-end PC. It is like saying here is a low-end computer that only works with an expensive monitor. It makes no sense.

Whatever Everex does, I hope they correct some of the problems they have had in the past and start producing great Linux PCs.

Yesterday, Tom’s Hardware posted a review of the KPC, a $200 PC that runs Foresight Linux. ($99 refers to the barebones version, which means the version with not all the parts installed.) The interesting thing about the review was the amount of time they spent on the operating system, and the conclusions they reached (spoiler: mostly positive.)

Most reviews of inexpensive Linux PCs tend to view Linux as not as good as Windows without really appearing to have investigated Linux for more than a few minutes. You would not expect Tom’s Hardware to be much different, since their main audience is Windows gamers, so I would expect them to be biased towards Windows, if anything. Surprisingly, however, they spent three pages of their review discussing the operating system. There were some weird parts of the review, such as complaining about Firefox’s compatibility with some web pages but not about Open Office being incompatible with some Office files, but overall the review seemed very reasonable and concluded that Foresight Linux was quite good.

It is not fair to judge based on only one review, but it seems like this review might be a lesson to other reviewers. Don’t assume Linux is not as good as Windows, try it out and investigate for yourself before coming to any conclusion.

Computer hardware is constantly getting  better. Intel and AMD are constantly trying to have the better, faster, cheaper chips. Graphics cards achieve higher benchmarks and lower price points every month. 2GB, or even 4GB, of RAM is becoming commonplace. Everything is getting faster and costing less at the same time and this will probably remain true forever. Microsoft and most Linux distributions view these same hardware improvements differently, though.

When Vista came out, one of the big complaints about it was that is was so resource demanding. Although perhaps not quite as extreme as with Vista, it seems quite reasonable to expect that with each new release of Windows, you will need a slightly, or perhaps not so slightly, better, faster computer than before.

This is not at all true of Linux. Phoronix recently published benchmarks comparing Ubuntu 7.10 (the current version) to Ubuntu 8.04 Beta (the beta of the version that will be out very soon.) What did they find? Ubuntu 8.04 is only very slightly slower than Ubuntu 7.10. Even more impressive, when the did comparisons with even earlier versions, 7.10 had actually improved on former versions.

What all this means is that Windows is becoming more and more resource reliant while Linux essentially maintains its requirements. Microsoft is already seeing the effects of their sloppiness in bad reviews of Vista and having to extend XP’s life, but unless they change soon, they will see it even more, and pay for it too.

In the future, it seems likely that a computer with Windows will cost far more than a computer with Linux, not because of the price of the operating system (since hardware manufacturers are constantly pretending Windows is free, when in reality it is not) but because the hardware required to run Windows is so much more expensive than the hardware required to run Linux.

Returning to the present, Linux is already well on its way to removing all the road blocks to switching. Even when there are no road blocks left, though, Linux will still not win mainstream adoption, until it gets a simple reason to use it: it’s cheaper.

Of course, Linux is cheaper right now. It’s free, while Windows costs hundreds of dollars. Well, as you probably know, most places like Dell get it for much less than that. I don’t think anyone knows for sure (and it almost undoubtedly varies for deal to deal), but a safe guess would be that places like Dell get Windows for around $40 (just a guess). In addition, we repeatedly see cases of an identical Windows and Linux machine costing exactly the same price. It is not fair to give Windows an advantage like that, but it seems to be the reality. No longer will it even matter, though, when a Linux machine costs so much less than a Windows machine, just because of the hardware.

Just by continuing to use minimal resources, Linux is constantly becoming a more and more attractive option, and eventually this may be the single most important factor in winning Linux’s mainstream adoption.

HP has announced the rumored HP 2133 Mini-Note PC, a UMPC that runs SuSe Linux or Windows Vista, according to Reg Hardware and HP’s press release. Not much new has been discovered, since almost all the specifications were leaked. For anyone who did not see the leaked specifications, the basic specs of the HP 2133 are 7/9in screen, VIA C7-M processor, 5GB solid state or a hard drive, up to 2GB of RAM, weighs just over 2.5 pounds, and costs around $500.

The most interesting thing about the HP 2133, however, is not the specifications, but how HP decided to target it. Because of the slightly more premium specifications, more professional look, and slightly higher price, I would have expected it to be targeted at a higher end market than the Eee PC. HP is going to sell it to business people (and presumably individuals), but they are also targeting education.

This seems odd to me, since the Eee PC seems so much better suited to the task. HP notes that the 2133 “is smaller and lighter than many math or science books,” but the Eee PC is even lighter. In addition, the Eee PC is also less expensive by at least $100, which makes a big difference when you are buying 1,000 for all the kids in your school. Also, the Eee PC has an interface designed to be simple and intuitive. So why would to choose the HP 2133 instead of the Eee PC for eduction? I don’t know.

Recently Best Buy posted a price for the upcoming Windows XP Eee PC on their website. The price is $399, the same as an Eee PC with Linux and the same hardware. What is wrong with that? Lots! You can read my full post on this subject for more details, but the very short summary of what is wrong with pricing the Windows Eee PC the same as the Linux one is that either Asus or Microsoft is absorbing the cost of Windows. If Asus is absorbing the cost, it is not their business to determine the pricing of other operating systems or if Microsoft is pressuring Asus to absorb the cost, that is almost certainly anti-competitive,  and if Microsoft is absorbing the cost itself, that too is almost certainly anti-competitive. (Not that I am a lawyer.)

So basically, if the otherwise identical Windows version and Linux version cost the same, I will be furious and you will almost certainly be seeing more about it here in the future.

You may be wondering why I am not already furious. After all, hasn’t Best Buy confirmed the price is the same? (Best Buy’s page for the Windows version, Linux version) The reason is that I do not trust the numbers on the Best Buy site for two reasons.

First, the picture on the Windows page shows the Linux interface and the Linux page shows a blue screen of death. (Really just a blue screen without the death part.) Second, and much less significantly, the Linux version has an offer for a deal to save $10 on Norton 360, a security product for Windows.

For these two reasons, it is possibly nothing more than a mistake made by Best Buy. So until the pricing is confirmed, I will withold judgment.

Update: Dell appears to have added 2 new laptops to their lineup since I wrote this article. The Google cache (dated April 5) shows only two machines, as there were when I wrote this. Now, there are four! Strangely, I cannot find any announcement, leading me to believe this could have been some sort of a bug??? That would make sense, but everything was still working on the page, so I am confused.

I do appreciate Dell trying to sell Ubuntu machines, but frankly I am surprised they are selling any at all. Here is why:

Lets take a look at Dell’s huge (sarcastic) selection of two (yes, two) Ubuntu machines. One is a desktop the other is a laptop. That alone is bad enough, but if you look even further, it only gets worse.

Perhaps the most noticeable option missing is on the desktop side. You can’t even get a Core 2 Duo processor. The only processor option on the desktop is an Pentium dual-core. Come on, Dell.

Most of the rest of the configuration on the ONE desktop seems reasonable, except for the lack of an option to get a wireless keyboard and mouse. I don’t have any idea why that option is left out.

The notebook Dell offers is barely better, if that. First of all, you had better want a 13″ notebook, because that is your only choice. Plus, in order to figure out that the notebook has a 13″ screen, you have to click on the notebook and then look at the tech specs tab and you better hope you don’t click on the customize button before looking at the tech specs, or else you will never know how big the screen is.

If you do figure out how big the screen is and don’t give up trying, you had better also like black, because that is the only color choice, despite Dell’s massive number of banner ads advertising all the colors you can get. Introducing Dell’s new advertising slogan: “Dell. You can get a custom color laptop, as long as it runs Windows.”

Basically, you should buy from Dell if you (1) want an underpowered desktop with wire clutter all over your desk or if you (2) want a black 13″ laptop and don’t mind digging around the product details to find out the most obvious spec about your new laptop: the size. Otherwise, may I direct you to System 76 or ZaReason.