Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Disruption & Market Control

Reply
Thread Tools

Disruption & Market Control

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
Interesting item
<http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9073 619&intsrc=news_list>
on the challenges faced by both Microsoft and Intel in dealing with these
new low-cost ultralight laptops. Apparently Intel is putting strict limits
on the kinds of configurations that can be built around its new low-power,
low-cost "Atom" platform (e.g. no screens as large as 14 inches), to avoid
cannibalizing sales of its more expensive hardware.

The assumption is that, if Intel can manage this, then Microsoft can
similarly be persuaded to continue offering Dimdows XP specifically for
these machines, without running the risk of hurting sales of Vista on more
expensive hardware.

I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this time
by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on Intel
hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ross
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:57:20 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>Interesting item
><http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9073 619&intsrc=news_list>
>on the challenges faced by both Microsoft and Intel in dealing with these
>new low-cost ultralight laptops. Apparently Intel is putting strict limits
>on the kinds of configurations that can be built around its new low-power,
>low-cost "Atom" platform (e.g. no screens as large as 14 inches), to avoid
>cannibalizing sales of its more expensive hardware.
>
>The assumption is that, if Intel can manage this, then Microsoft can
>similarly be persuaded to continue offering Dimdows XP specifically for
>these machines, without running the risk of hurting sales of Vista on more
>expensive hardware.
>
>I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
>opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this time
>by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on Intel
>hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux.


I heard something about them continuing with Windows Crippled (or
whatever they call the cut-down version that can run only 3 processes
simultaneously).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
BrianM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:57:20 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Interesting item
> <http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9073 619&intsrc=news_list>
> on the challenges faced by both Microsoft and Intel in dealing with these
> new low-cost ultralight laptops. Apparently Intel is putting strict limits
> on the kinds of configurations that can be built around its new low-power,
> low-cost "Atom" platform (e.g. no screens as large as 14 inches), to avoid
> cannibalizing sales of its more expensive hardware.
>
> The assumption is that, if Intel can manage this, then Microsoft can
> similarly be persuaded to continue offering Dimdows XP specifically for
> these machines, without running the risk of hurting sales of Vista on more
> expensive hardware.
>
> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this time
> by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on Intel
> hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux.


Something like a VIA C7-M CPU running Damn Small Linux,
with Fluxbox as the UI.

cheers
BrianM


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nik Coughlin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:ft1o3f$m8e$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this time
> by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on Intel
> hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux.


So you're advocating restricting people's choice of OS?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
In article <ft3c7u$je5$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:ft1o3f$m8e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
>> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this
>> time by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on
>> Intel hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only
>> Linux.

>
> So you're advocating restricting people's choice of OS?


In what way?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nik Coughlin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:ft3m5d$ru5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <ft3c7u$je5$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:ft1o3f$m8e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
>>> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this
>>> time by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on
>>> Intel hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only
>>> Linux.

>>
>> So you're advocating restricting people's choice of OS?

>
> In what way?


"and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
In article <ft3mrk$ona$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:ft3m5d$ru5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <ft3c7u$je5$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:ft1o3f$m8e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
>>>> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this
>>>> time by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on
>>>> Intel hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only
>>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> So you're advocating restricting people's choice of OS?

>>
>> In what way?

>
> "and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux."


So you're advocating restrictcing people's choice of hardware?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nik Coughlin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:ft3nc9$sjk$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <ft3mrk$ona$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:ft3m5d$ru5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <ft3c7u$je5$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nik Coughlin did write:
>>>
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:ft1o3f$m8e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> I think that trying to control the market in this way just leaves an
>>>>> opportunity open for someone to come along and disrupt it again, this
>>>>> time by building a new, even lower-cost machine that doesn't depend on
>>>>> Intel hardware, and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only
>>>>> Linux.
>>>>
>>>> So you're advocating restricting people's choice of OS?
>>>
>>> In what way?

>>
>> "and possibly even has no option to run Dimdows, only Linux."

>
> So you're advocating restrictcing people's choice of hardware?


Did you mean by no option to run Windows, not powerful enough to? Or do you
mean unable to in the sense that it's not x86 compatible? Which is not the
same thing as doesn't depend on Intel hardware. I have no problem with
that. It sounded like you were saying there was "no option" to run Windows,
which implies through the use of the word "option" that the potential is
there.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ross did write:

> I heard something about them continuing with Windows Crippled (or
> whatever they call the cut-down version that can run only 3 processes
> simultaneously).


Well, the word is officially out
<http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/xp_pro_execution_set_home_gets_reprieve.html>:
XP Pro is for the chop at the end of June, while XP Home will continue to
be available only for budget machines like the Eee.

In other words, business Dimdows customers who have been stubbornly
resisting Vista are ****ed.

The promotion of XP Home is a clear attempt to wall off the threat posed by
this new market segment to Vista. It's a typically reactive, not a
proactive, response, which is all Microsoft seems capable of these days:
it's assuming--nay, hoping--that adoption of these budget machines will not
spread to business customers. But why shouldn't that happen? The market is
discovering that these are amazingly useful little systems.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A bit resistant to disruption Francois Grieu C Programming 49 03-16-2010 04:05 AM
Re: Micoshaft market share drops to 0% for distributed OS Desktop Market overnight Simon Finnigan Computer Support 0 03-03-2010 04:51 PM
Firefox Losing Market Share??? Bill Firefox 1 08-23-2005 05:35 PM
Script disruption with Macromedia Flash HellPope Huey Firefox 4 08-16-2005 07:42 PM
Re: adsl service disruption JM Computer Support 0 07-22-2003 07:53 AM



Advertisments