Imagining the end of high-cost computing?
For more than two decades, personal computing has been anything but inexpensive. To be sure, prices for the average computer have dropped substantially since the 1980s. But with the exception of the occasional bargain or bare-bones configuration, the price of a good computer system still takes quite a bite out of the family budget.
That iron calculation no longer applies and shoppers can now find low-end systems in the $300 range running Celeron or Sempron processors. But the more intriguing development is the emergence of Intel's Atom chip and what it might suggest about the Netbook's ability to one day replace a traditional desktop or notebook as a family's primary personal computer.
By itself, the Atom (as well the expected arrival of a similar chip from Advanced Micro Devices one of these days) probably won't be enough to compel a huge change in consumer behavior. (Though since the Eee PC's debut in late 2007, about 12 million low-cost Netbooks have been sold.)
The Atom's fortune is to arrive at a particular juncture in the history of technology and the global economy as several trends are working simultaneously to its benefit, as pointed out recently in a convincing paper by Bernstein Research's reliably excellent Toni Sacconaghi.
• The recession: Stimulus or no stimulus, the global economy is going to need months to repair itself. Against the backdrop of growing joblessness on the rise and financial insecurity, families are looking twice and three times at discretionary purchases, like a PC.
• Free software: Microsoft long ago lost the perception fight around open-source software. Now with the emergence of Ubuntu, the idea of Linux on the desktop isn't the pipedream it was at the start of the decade.
• Cloud computing: Not everything will reside in the cloud but Web-based computing increasingly dominates what we do in front of the terminal. If all you need is a good data connection, there's less rationale for paying top dollar to buy a fancy computer. You don't need a top of the line machine to access YouTube.
• Fresh technology and the "cool" factor: Admit it, we're all fashion whores when it comes to tech toys and Netbooks are a hip item these days, especially compared with the frumpy Celeron and Sempron boxes they compete against.
Ubuntu man: Mark Shuttleworth
(Credit: Mark Shuttleworth)I can hear the objections already. What about gamers or advanced photo editing or video encoding? Fair enough, but that still doesn't account for more than half the population of consumers for whom Atom-based systems are more than enough. Sacconaghi points to a Pew Internet & America Life Project in December, which found that "38% of adults (roughly 75% of the gaming population) reported using their desktop or notebook PCs for gaming." And while it's true that high-end hardware offers richer capabilities, the fact is that most people don't do heavy-duty photo editing or video encoding.
The wild card here is Canonical, the company which puts out Ubuntu. Until Ubuntu, there was little to the argument that mainstream computer users would load Linux onto their machines. On paper, it sounded great but it never worked out in practice. Simply put, people have lives to live and don't have the time or the inclination to immerse themselves in learning a new operating system.
But I like what Mark Shuttleworth, has done with Ubuntu since he founded Canonical in 2004. Not only is it relatively easy to use but Ubuntu is compatible with Microsoft Office. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, more developers will pick up on that over the next year. Especially if this recession-depression drags on.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
Exactly. And it never will. At the end of the day, Ubuntu is just mimicking Windows, so that people familiar with Windows can consider switching. But like it or not, it is Windows that is driving the ecosystem, growing the pc business and enabling new scenarios. Unless Ubuntu can lead, why would I consider using a copycat?
The only argument is price. But Microsoft already said they are shipping a low cost version of Windows 7 for netbooks. For a few bucks more you can get Windows 7 instead of Linux. People are already choosing XP over Ubuntu (by a ratio of 5 to 1, and that is not even counting people returning Linux netbooks because they thought they were buying Windows) even though it costs more than what Windows 7 will cost. So what makes you think they will suddenly start buying Ubuntu after Windows 7 ships?
Someday, pcs/netbooks/whatever will be so cheap they will be disposable, and there will be no price margin and hence no reason left for big companies like Microsoft to invest in them. All companies will follow the money and move to other profitable areas. Only then, Linux may own the desktop.
As a convert from XP to Ubuntu, Ubuntu mimicks nothing. It works in similar fashion to all current operating systems (point and click), but other than that, the interface is different, it includes a package management software with repositories enabled, it's much better organized with plain labels for menus and plenty of good software already included.
Price. Ubuntu is free. A few bucks more isn't free. Ubuntu for netbooks is still a full version of Ubuntu. Windows 7 for netbooks is crippleware.
People haven't chosen XP over Ubuntu, they've chosen what's always been on their computer over something new. Windows 7 is something new and, as I said earlier, it's crippleware. Give the consumer the choice between something with full functionality that doesn't cost anything and something which isn't free and doesn't have full functionality, the consumer will choose the first option. Your last sentence makes no sense when you realize Ubuntu is free. The consumer is purchasing the computer, not the OS.
Your last paragraph is yet another instance of Linux bashing, it's sad that you don't realize it's already out there, being used in systems to allow for money to be made.
It looks like the trend in computing is the storage of data and apps to the cloud. as that continues, you need a screen with a web browser, how far along are you on that transition curve?
Just FYI for those considering an ubuntu netbook:
Things I like: fully customizeable interface/i can use picasa to manage and edit photos (although now that i've gotten used to using tags, FStop is cool)/Its got the same ol' Firefox that you are used to on Windows/Skype works on it/Open Office does all productivity things I need at home
Things I don't like: Games. It's been said before, but mainstream games don't work out of the box. yes, wine and virtual boxes might get some things working, but it ain't easy. Video editing. There are lots of them out there for linux, but I can't find one that does what I want and is easy enough to figure out in 30 minutes.
But I agree, mostI(if not all) people with a MacBook(or dreaming of one) can do with an Atom powered machine, Atom does Flash/Email/productivity software/DVDs just fine.
why settle for less?
Netbooks are fine for surfing/email...maybe even the $300 entry level netbook'/linux would be fine..but QuadCore with 6gigs RAM...well, it multi-tasks and is LIGHTNING quick...
The migration to cloud services is likely to lead to the predominance of "thin" OSes on the client devices (fast, light, secure, reliable), so that the cloud services are accessible/usable from any device at any time (smartphones, netbooks, notebooks, desktops, TVs, ...).
Once this point is reached, the discussion about Windows/Linux/OS X will be moot. It will be whatever "thin" OS the device manufacturer installs to interface to the hardware and to provide the desired user environment for the cloud services.
Some kind of irrational hype...
OpenSuse - that's Novell, right? Didn't they jump into bed with M$? Sorry, but you can't escape Darth Vader by running to the open arms of a Storm Trooper.
Why? Because of the nightmare that is the open source community when it comes to finding and installing software. Until the entire open source community realizes that all software needs to be as simple and well finished they will continue to put off average users with average computer experience.
Even installing Ubuntu is not as simple as it needs to be. I required a virtual machine with preinstalled software to make things as simple as possible. I was faced with dozens of pages of choices with dozens of sources to download the distro with various amounts of software already installed and minimal information to sort the good from the bad.
On the other hand XP has less choices and finding and installing software is an easy process compared to discovering Linux software and sorting the truly worthwhile (which there are many) from the large amount of half baked Linux offerings that often require above average computer expertise in order to install.
Windows and Mac have an environment that assumes that I am a dummy, and since so many of us are either only average or below average in computer expertise, most of us would rather pay money to Microsoft and Apple than use the free alternative of Linux even in its Ubuntu form. Ubuntu itself is good but it takes more than just the OS to satisfy most people.
I have been running Ubuntu as my primary OS for quite a while now. For me, computing is not just about software cost or "Apple-like" polish. It is also about productivity. Ubuntu is fast, stable with no/low maintenance. It stays out of my way, so I can work.
In theory Ubuntu should be easy, and your point is valid, however I am more adventurous than most people I know with the computer and yet I find it easy to get bogged down and unproductive with Linux. As an artist I require graphics programs. I have Gimp installed but it really is a poor mans cousin of Photoshop and requires the installation of lots of plug-ins to make it sufficiently useful for me to use. Gimp is easy to find and install but as soon as I look for plug-ins I immediately find that it is a minefield.
The problem is the enthusiasm of the open source community that is not matched with the marketing expertise that is necessary. An example is in these posts in which someone argues for OpenSuse over Ubuntu. So long as so many Linux distros exist adoption rates for all of them will remain low. The average person in the street has a very low tolerance for confusion with any product and the fact that there is any debate as to which is the better or simpler Linux just confuses people. Whether or not Linux really is simple or unnecessarily confusing doesn't matter, the perception is that Linux is problematic and so only computing enthusiasts and those with above average computer skills will choose Linux over Windows or OS X.
It is true that netbooks with Linux have been selling, but it is also true that given the choice of a netbook with Windows or one with Linux the majority of purchasers choose the Windows version.
I don't see the netbook ever replacing the family personal computer. It's just too small and inconvenient to stare at that little screen all the time. Nowadays people like to touch up their digital photos usually with the software included with their digital cameras. You don't need a high end pc to do that, just need something with a larger screen to make it easier to edit photos. I'd like to see you do that on a netbook on a regular basis. I assure you it would get old pretty fast. Older people, like my parents, like the larger monitor and full keyboard. It makes it easier for them to surf and type out emails. I know for a fact they would rather use a 15" monitor over an 8.9" one. It's kind of like this analogy: would you rather have your family watch movies on a 13" tv or a 26" tv?
As for the high-end gaming pc's going away? You've got to be kidding. It might be a fact that not many people use pc's for games or advanced photo editing, but it's also a fact that the video game industry is a multi billion dollar industry and not taking advantage of that is a mistake. Also, whose to say that Atom based computers are more than enough for more than half the population? Everyone's requirements and tastes differ.
Don't get me wrong. I like the netbooks but they only fill a small niche which doesn't include replacing the family desktop pc. Will they replace laptops? Possibly for those users who don't require much out of their laptop.
And lets take a look at these beastly little netbooks. I cannot imagine that anyone really WANTS to use one. They remind me of the Yugo, a car that has thankfully left a very small footprint in the minds of the American publish. A year or two from now we aren't going to be talking about netbooks - at least not as they are designed today. Other than the fact that they are cheap (in every sense of the word) they have nothing going for them.
As far as Ubuntu goes. It looks very promising. And why would anyone want that clumsy whale of an OS from MS when they can get an OS that will fly on fewer resources? I've been looking at Ubuntu very hard. Since Vista SP 1 crashed my Vista box. I still have a two year warranty on that box that I'm willing to void just to get a decent OS on the thing. Vista is the suckiest OS I've ever seen, and I'm really not interested in gambling on Windows 7.
I use Firefox as a browser, exclusively, on both my machines, but out of curiosity I upgraded from IE7 to IE 8 the other day on my XP machine. I tooled around a bit, and fiddled with a few things. IE 8 is a loser. It doesn't really look any different from IE 7, it has a couple of extra bells and whistles. But it's still clumsy and gauche compared to a slim trim Firefox. And Firefox is super customizable, I can do the same things IE 8 does with Firefox, and much better, and with constant upgrades. It's hilarious and it feels like a lame sop to consumers the way MS developed IE 8. And I think Windows 7 is gonna be just the same. A lotta hype and no substance. Why the heck should anyone take that frumpy IE 8 when there's much better for free?
I never have followed the crowd in anything, and I'm not about to buy a netbook or use Windows just because everyone else does. Now that there's a viable OS that's user friendly instead of Geek speak, I'm ready and willing to abandon Windows with no remorse.
If you end up not liking Ubuntu, reformat that partition. Try another Linux distro, or make it another file system for fista. The choice is yours, as is the computer - despite what M$ wants you to think.
Gotta love this industry. They are Santa's elves churning out new hobby horses every year yet never actually getting the kids to stop playing with the boxes they came in.
My old tower P4 machine sucked down 120 watts just sitting there. Now I'm sipping power at 24 watts at rest. That's a savings that I can take to the bank and that also helps the environment.
I still have the old box, but I only fire it up when I want to edit video for a DVD or something like that. I've sent my "gas guzzler" to the garage, and my new daily driver is suiting me just fine. If you ask me, it's way beyond time to stop selling everyone jet engines when most of your driving is done on side streets...
In practical terms, a nicely designed, high quality Atom based home terminal with a nice screen and Ubuntu (think iMac-like) can't achieve a significant cost differential with a similar machine that substitutes a full CPU and Windows (and likely more RAM). If the former costs $600 and the latter costs $750-$800, it won't be enough for most people to consider the lower priced model because we've all been burned by purchasing a lower powered system to save a few bucks only to find its lifecycle is curtailed as software rapidly becomes more complex.
I use a netbook as a couch-surfing and travelling substitute for a full PC. Aside from the cramped keyboard (a function of the form factor, not the Atom CPU, etc.), it's fine, but it does frustrate me at times with its slowness. Even a Flash-heavy website (think ESPN.com) can bog down an Atom CPU, let alone several websites open at once. The performance is OK for very basic tasks, but as soon as I want to do anything meaningful, it's back to the fast, fast, fast PC.
Had I purchased the netbook over a full laptop to save $150-200, I'd feel burned at this point, but I knew what I was buying the netbook for -- limited use case. As secondary devices, low-powered Atom-based computers make sense, but that makes them largely additive, not replacements. I don't have the data, but I'd venture a guess that most netbooks are secondary devices.
-Mister Winky
PS. Ubuntu isn't the only Linux distro. I think we need to acknowledge the others some time
- by shoelaceninja March 24, 2009 10:05 AM PDT
- I dislike netbooks. What can you do on them? Surf the internet and check emails. Anything other than that, a 1.6ghz processor can't do much.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)My ipod touch completely fulfills the tasks that people get netbooks for. Plus my ipod can hold a charge longer than they can. It's more mobile and available for Very cheap, depending on what size you get.
There will never be an end to high-end computing. Don't you think there are people out there that require high-end computers to do what they do? I game a lot. So you want me to play WoW on a netbook? I would only consider that if it could match the specs for desktops, with the proper output plugs.
I can also argue with other comments on here about photo editing. Trust me, those programs don't run as lite as your internet browser, and if you want to do more than a quick "touch-up," an atom processor is a rope around the computer's neck.