Modify Colors
Posts in asus
Asus Says Windows and Linux Eee PCs Getting the Same Return Rate?
Asus’s CEO is grabbing headlines for an interview (which actually happened in late October) in which he stated that Windows and Linux Eee PCs are getting about the same return rate, contrary to what MSI and Canonical have said in the past. Really, though? There are four reasons why I doubt this is completely true.
- Asus’s CEO did not exactly sound sure. In the interview, he said this:
“I think the return rate for the Eee PCs are low but I believe the Linux and Windows have similar return rates.”
To me, that sounds like he was guessing, not stating an actual number - It would not benefit Asus to disclose their return numbers. No matter what the numbers look like, there is really no reason why Asus would want to say that one of their products gets returned a lot, unless they were actually going to discontinue the product.
- The is no real reason why the CEO should know anyway. Asus is a big company and Eee PCs are only a part of their business. Why should their CEO know specific numbers for return rates inside a specific product line, if Asus even knows what those numbers are.
- Even Canonical admitted Linux has higher return rates. If even Canonical says Linux is returned more, then it is highly likely that it is true across all netbooks. Plus, it makes sense that the unfamiliar product would be returned more.
Of course, the counter-argument would be that Linux on the Eee PC has been talked about so much more that it is not as much of an unknown as Linux is on other products.
Replacing A Cheaper Price With More Resources For Linux
The netbook craze has created a lot of netbooks that have Windows and Linux versions. This, naturally, creates something or a pricing issue, since Linux is free and Windows is not. The most obvious option is to make the Linux one cheaper, but that is not what Asus, and possibly others, have decided to do. Both Asus’s Eee Box and Eee PCs instead have additional resources in the Linux version.
I can understand the logic: don’t confuse the customers with different prices, while recognizing that Linux is less expensive. In fact, the way Asus did it in the Eee PC, where the Linux version has additional storage, makes a lot of sense. Perhaps not quite as much as just making it cheaper, but that is their decision.
What I don’t understand is the plan for their Eee Box. With the Eee Box, the Linux version comes with 2GB of RAM instead of one. The thing is that 1GB is plenty for Linux. Vista might need it, but most Linux users do not. Putting in a faster processor or a larger hard drive would make more sense.
I don’t mean to attack the Eee Box in any way. I simply want to point out the lack of logic in putting more resources in the one that needs less.
Asus Takes Major Step Forward: Adds CNR Capability to Linux Eee PC
Engadget reports today that Asus added to their download section a place for applications that will run on the Eee PC in the CNR format (more later.) Unfortunately, the CNR installer is not yet on the Eee PC, so putting the website up in the first place was probably a mistake (and they have taken it down now), but it is great to know that this is being planned. Here is why it is so important:
Until now, and for at least a few days more, the Eee PC’s default OS has been locked down (see all my stuff on Ubuntu Netbook Remix). This means that anyone who wants to do anything outside of the Eee PCs default applications (edit: easily – it is possible) has to install a new OS. Now, or presumably soon, you will be able to go to the Asus website (and probably CNR.com, too) and click a single button to install an application. This is what Click n’ Run (CNR) lets you do.
Long time readers can probably understand why I am so enthusiastic about this. I have complained about the Eee’s OS being too locked down (see link to Ubuntu Netbook Remix posts above) and I have talked about the merits of CNR and similar solutions. To me, this seems the perfect use of a good technology to fix a problem. It makes sense, too, since Linspire (the company that created CNR) was just bought by Xandros (who makes the Eee PC’s OS.)
It may be a lot late, but it is bettter than nothing. Hopefully, this will help to get people to more carefully consider the options and, perhaps, opt for Linux. Still many will want to install their own OS, but at least now the default OS is more flexible, as it should have been from the beginning.
A few days ago I wrote a post titled “Will the EBOX have a chance?” (The Eee Box is an inexpensive Linux or Windows desktop made by Asus.) In that article, I said this:
There may be a lot less Linux desktop competition than Windows desktop competition, but there are still a surprising number of inexpensive Linux desktops, such as the gPC. Unfortunately, none of those cheap Linux desktops have done particularly well, so how is the EBOX going to be different?
At the time I noted a few things that the Eee Box had going for it:
- The Eee PC has done very well, so its momentum may push the EBOX forward
- The EBOX looks very nice
- Asus may be able to do the software better than other companies have done it. For example, many people complained about bugs in the gOS that shipped with the gPC.
Still, I was not entirely convinced that the EBOX would succeed. Now that the Eee Box specifications are out, I can add another point to the list above, one that may make a big difference:
- Can be configured to have enough RAM (1-2GB) to compete with modern desktops
Why is this point such a big deal? If you look at the previous attempts such as the gPC, they tried too hard to target the price-concious market. Because of this, the gPC and other earlier attempts at a cheap Linux desktop did not appeal to tech-savvy people. The Eee Box, however, between its looks and better specs will appeal to a larger audience. That is the answer to my question “how is the EBOX going to be different?” I will be very interested to see if this is enough to make the Eee Box successful.
Quite a while ago, Asus announced that they would be introducing a desktop version of the Eee PC, the E-DT. Now more details appear to have been leaked about the device, now called the EBOX, according to Electronista. Almost all of the details from before appear to still be true. The device is supposed to cost between $200-$300 and the previously-leaked design, which looks GREAT, also appears to be real. Perhaps the most interesting detail, though, is that there is no word of a Windows version.
Personally, I think that, in the case of a desktop, leaving Windows out is a good choice, and not just because I like Linux more. If you think about it, there are so many Windows desktops that as a Windows machine, the EBOX would have too much competition to succeed. As a Linux box, though, there is significantly less competition. Because of this, I think the apparent choice to ignore Windows for the EBOX is the right move.
This argument does bring up one question, though. There may be a lot less Linux desktop competition than Windows desktop competition, but there are still a surprising number of inexpensive Linux desktops, such as the gPC. Unfortunately, none of those cheap Linux desktops have done particularly well, so how is the EBOX going to be different? Frankly, I am not sure if I have a good answer to that question, so we will have to see what Asus does. The EBOX does have a few things going for it, though:
- The Eee PC has done very well, so its momentum may push the EBOX forward
- The EBOX looks very nice
- Asus may be able to do the software better than other companies have done it. For example, many people complained about bugs in the gOS that shipped with the gPC.
Although none of those are particularly compelling arguements, they do give the EBOX a chance. Hopefully Asus will take this chance and make the EBOX as good as the Eee PC and bring Linux to even more new users.
Is The Linux Eee PC 900 More Expensive Than The Windows Version? (Now With Real Numbers)
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.