For a long time the question has been going back and forth: is Asus messing with us and making the Linux version of the Eee PC more expensive than the Windows version? Previously the numbers have all been speculation, but now, finally, we have real numbers to look at!

So now that the Eee PC 900 is out, it should be easy to get to the bottom of this mystery, right? Naturally, no. For some reason, only a few places seem to be selling the Eee PC 900. Worse, those prices are not all the same. Basically I was only able to find three places that sell both the Linux and Windows versions: Buy.com, Newegg, and OnSale. (I also found both at one more place, but from that store both cost more than $600.) So what are the prices?

Eee PC 900 Windows: $550, $550, $595

Eee PC 900 Linux: $590, $550, $550

Groan. It has been so long. Couldn’t you just give us numbers that make sense??? All I can assume is that Asus is really selling both versions for the same price and Buy.com and OnSale are just making one version or the other more expensive for some reason. Especially since Newegg has them both for the same price, I think that is the best assumption.

So in summary, because the Linux version has more storage space, which cancels out the price of Windows, I think Asus, at least in the US, has done the right thing and made them both cost the same so that no advantage is given to either OS. Now I just wish OnSale, Buy.com, and anyone else messing with these prices would just make them both cost the same as they should.  That way, the price advantage of Linux will be clear to all shoppers.

Microsoft has apparently given details of a new deal to PC makers that allows them to get discounted Windows XP licenses for use on UMPCs, according to Computer World UK. This already appeared to be the case due to pricing on the Eee PC, however it had not been confirmed. There seem to be two parts to this story. First, Microsoft is selling Windows for less on UMPCS. Second, some people suspect that the deal is supposed to prevent UMPCs from competing with normal PCs.

The first part is relatively simple. Microsoft is giving essentially the same product away at difference prices, depending what type of device it will go on. Although I am not in any way a lawyer, I suspect that this is legal, since Microsoft can just change one little feature and then it is a different product. Just because it is probably legal, does not, however, mean I think it is a fair practice. Another way of stating the second sentence of this paragraph is: Microsoft is making Windows less expensive in the markets where Linux is gaining market share. Because of this, I think this practice should be illegal and is certainly unfair.

The second part of the story is slightly more complicated, though not by much. The Computer World article brings up the point that Microsoft may be trying to limit UMPCs from invading the regular PC market by defining them with these specifications:

• Max screen size: 10.2
• No touch screen
• Hard drives are limited to 80GB
• Max 1GB RAM
• Max 1Ghz single-core processor, except for a few particular chips

Although it is true that these specifications would limit a UMPC from competing with a regular PC, three things should be kept in mind.

1. Microsoft has to set the limit somewhere. If Windows is going to have a different price for UMPCs, Microsoft has to define what a UMPC is so a 17-inch desktop replacement doesn’t count.
2. Every major UMPC that I can think of fits these specifications.
3. If these specifications are going to limit UMPCs, it is only going to hurt Microsoft. PC makers will not stop improving their hardware because they don’t get Microsoft’s discount. They might, however, switch to Linux, because Windows costs $50 more.

For these three reasons, I don’t see anything wrong with the specifications Microsoft has set. I do, however, think that the whole idea of selling the same product at differenet prices is unfair. If you disagree, however, I am open to hearing your arguement. Go ahead and post it in the comments.

Note: Everyone that pointed out that it is really only a difference of $50 if right, however the basic point still stands, since $50 max difference is assuming Windows is free.

Also, every that pointed out the USB flash drives are quite different from SSDs is, of course, correct. I am, and was, aware of the difference, however I choose to use flash drives due to their availability.

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.

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.

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.

With the new Windows Eee PC approaching, Laptop Magazine recently reported that the price of the Windows Eee PC 4G is $400. The price of the current Eee PC 4G is also $400 (Amazon) with Linux. This means one of two things happened.

The first possibility is simply that there is going to be a price drop. That would be just fine and good. Yay. Whatever.

The second possibility, however, (and please note, this is only a possibility, not a fact) is that either Asus is absorbing the cost of Windows or that Microsoft is giving XP to Asus for free. If either one of these is happening, it is not OK with me.

For Asus’s part, it is not their business to determine what operating systems cost. By making Windows free, they give Microsoft an unfair advantage that they should not be given. If Windows is the one giving XP away for free, that is just as bad as bribing bloggers with expensive laptops.

Keep in mind that the explanation could just be a price drop, which would mean nothing bad is going on, but the EU should keep an eye on this.

We already knew Asus was planning on releasing a new Eee PC, but today Digitimes is reporting on a few more rather important details of the upcoming Eee PC - it will have a touchscreen and possibly GPS support too. (The price is supposed to be $500 with 1GB of RAM and probably around an 8GB SSD.) Apart from this being a cool feature, though, how is this really important?

In the past, the Eee PC has mostly been about the hardware. Yes it is cool that it runs Linux, but there is nothing amazing about the software. Now that there is going to be a touchscreen on the Eee PC, software will be much more important.

If the touchscreen is only used as an alternative mouse, it may well become the kind of feature that gets old after 10 minutes. On the other hand, if Asus creates software the fully takes advantage of the touchscreen, it could make the touchscreen the main selling point of the device. I don’t think Asus will pass up an opportunity like this. Chances are there will be much more attention put into the software in the second generation Eee PC, which is good.

This increased attention to the software could be a way for Linux to stay the main operating system on the Eee PC, not just a secondary choice for geeks, when Windows is added as an option. Because Linux, and most of the applications that run on it, are open-source, Asus can modify them to work really well with the touchscreen, whereas with Windows, Asus will not be able to modify the software as easily. In this way, the Linux version of the Eee PC could have a significant advantage over the Windows version.

If you have been watching the Linux UMPC space, you may have noticed a new trend: style. Asus said fashion would be more important in future Eee PCs, HP has a rumored Linux UMPC that is very sleek, and, most recently, ECS announced a Linux UMPC that is designed to be very sleek. Apart from, obviously, just making Linux UMPCs look cooler, this new trend could also expand the market for Linux UMPCs.

Before the Eee PC, the few Eee PC-ish laptops were generally very high end, very expensive, and targeted at business executives. Although the Eee PC is a similar form factor and it is only $400, compared to over $2000, the Eee PC was not targeted at business executives at all. Now with the increasing attention being paid to making Linux UMPCs sleek, a Linux UMPC might be a reasonable consideration for business executives, not only expanding the Linux UMPC market, but also potentially making people more comfortable with using Linux in the office.

Although there are, of course, many other factors involved, Linux UMPCs with attention paid to style seem likely to expand the market considerably, not just for Linux UMPCs, but potentially for Linux in general.

Asus has not always gotten it just right on the Eee PC’s software the the first time, but at least they do fix the problems the arise. Just recently, Asus issued a set of updates to the Eee PC’s software that should fix the out-of-the-box vulnerabilities that have been a point of concern for security conscious Eee PC users, according to CLUMPC.

The update also includes newer versions of some of the default software, although no major new features have been reported so far. Although I certainly think that any updates to the Eee PC’s software are good, I will be curious to see if any major new features are introduced in future updates or in the upcoming Eee PC 900. Right now it seems like the main attraction of the Eee PC is the hardware and, while that may never change, a lot more could be done to make the software a selling point as well. Even just making the interface look slicker (see Ubuntu Mobile) could help make the software a major attraction. Changes like this seem quite likely in the future, since Asus’s CEO has mentioned that style will become more of a focus in future Eee PCs.