Welcome to My World

Microsoft thinks it has an “innovative” way to encourage people to use Windows XP (not Vista, amusingly enough) on all these sexy new ultra-portable, ultra-cheap laptop computers instead of Linux (which is what almost every manufacturer of these little machines has been using so far): license XP at a steep discount so long as manufacturers deliberately cripple the hardware.

The “discount” only applies when the hardware in question has an 80GB disk or less, a 10.2 inch screen or smaller, and no touchscreen. Oh, they also can’t have a CPU faster than 1GHz, or more than 1GB of memory. In short, you can only license XP for use on one of these inexpensive boxes if you deliberately hobble its performance (I mean by a means other than installing XP on it).

So, um, are these people idiots or something? Linux kicks XP’s ass performance-wise, especially on slower systems. People appear to be choosing Linux on these machines over Windows anyway, and somehow I suspect nobody’s really going to be impressed by the Microsoft offering now when they configure their machines. I picture these two selections on a custom configuration site for an ultra-portable:

Operating System: Choose which operating system you want installed on your new SpiffyTinyBeast(tm):

• Install Ubuntu Linux 8.04 “Hardy Heron” (included in price)
  • You may use any available hardware configuration with this operating system.
• Install Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (add $34)
  • Microsoft licensing requirements limit your hardware configuration options. To comply with these requirements, selecting this option will automatically downgrade your current customizations:
  • 1GB memory (was 2GB, subtract $49)
  • 80GB hard disk (was 160GB, subtract $29)
  • 10.2-inch display (was 12-inch, subtract $59)
  • 1.0GHz CPU (was 1.6GHz, subtract $49)
  • No touch screen (was “touchscreen”, subtract $99)

So I guess Microsoft would rather deliberately cripple the entire ultra-portable market by forcing vendors to sell cheap, underpowered machines (running a bloated, underpowered OS, no less ) than risk losing the competition in a genuinely open market. In my hypothetical example there, the “Windows-powered” machine is a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the “Linux-powered” one, but it’s also not as fast (because of a slower CPU and decreased memory), doesn’t hold as much (because of the shrunken disk), is harder to see (because of the smaller screen), and lacks a touchscreen. Their offer is, essentially, “if you can tolerate a slower system, we’ll let you buy our OS to run on it!” Um, that’s not a really good deal, now is it? Of course, you could take the same “Microsoft-compliant” specification, and still save yourself $34 by running Linux on it anyway. It’ll still run faster, too. Heh.

Then again, I suspect everyone buying these ultra-portables is laughing and/or yawning at Microsoft’s “offer” anyway. No thanks, Microsoft — methinks I’ll spec my own hardware to suit my needs, and I’ll run the OS I prefer on it. You needn’t be involved.