Xandros instant-on platform: Who needs it?

Linux shop Xandros is launching the Presto "instant-on" platform for PCs and laptops at the Demo 09 conference.

When I saw my first PC with an alternate, quick-boot Linux operating system (DeviceVM), I was impressed. But I no longer think this is a viable market. I do not believe consumers want to run two operating systems on their computers--one fast to boot but limited, and one slow but capable. They want what they know, and for most of them, that means Windows. That's why Windows XP has become the popular operating system for low-spec Netbooks. And with computers on the whole getting more powerful, and Windows 7 getting such great reviews even on midrange PCs now (which will be low-end in months), I just don't see much of a market for two-OS computers.

The Xandros Presto desktop does a lot of what Windows does.

(Credit: Xandros)

Xandros does claim some unique points for Presto. It has full access to files stored in the Windows partitions, full access to networking hardware, and there's an app store for programs that run in the platform. Also, unlike other quick-boot products, Xandros claims Presto doesn't require any hardware integration work.

It's probably a fine operating system by itself. For it and other Linux distros, there are popular browsing and communication apps available, as well as decent (and free) productivity suites. The Xandros OS makes more sense as a competitor to Windows, not an adjunct to it. That's a niche market, as everyone knows, but it probably has more of a a future than the market for pre-Windows operating systems.

If you want to try Presto, it will be only $19.95 when it ships in April. The beta is free until then.

[hardawayd]

I think the issue is a little deeper than one would expect. First, the Presto product, like the Instant-on product build into Dell Latitudes is forward looking in that more and more users are moving to the cloud (i.e., Google Docs). This dual feature allows some work to be done in the cloud while other work where the cloud applications are not good enough yet can be done in the traditional fashion---on the PC. The adoption of XP has little to do with the desire to have a fully capable PC and more to do with behavioral characteristics of humans who are creatures of habit (see Everrtt M. Rogers--Diffusion of Innovations). As popularity and awareness builds for Linux you can expect buying behaviors to change. Linux does not advertise on TV. If this changes then people will explore and once they find out that Linux does not come with the limitations that Windows or any proprietary system does, and Linux applications will fulfill their needs, they will make a rational choice and change.

[osvico]

I think the reason more people haven't adopted Linux by now isn't because of habit, but because of brand recognition and because they already know how Windows works. Put bluntly, people are lazy.

And while I do believe that cloud computing will gain some adoption in the future, I don't believe it will happen anytime soon. People also seem to be expecting too much out of it -- even to the point where a company like AMD/ATI are putting together an expensive server using their video cards to provide graphics processing. If this does get adopted as greatly as people expect, it won't be with great results, since so many users would be taking up a good portion of the processing power. However, I get the feeling you're not talking about graphics processing so it may just be a moot point. I have noticed that it does work with general office applications like GMail and Google Docs (although, Google Docs hasn't gained much support). On the possibility that it doesn't take off, it will just result with multiple expensive projects that lead nowhere worthwhile.

Also, you claim that there are limitations that people see with Windows, which would not be present in Linux. Explain them to me, because, honestly, I don't see any limitation. The limitation I do see is on the side of Linux with a lack of support by hardware vendors. Personally, I've made several attempts to transition to Linux, and in all cases driver issues prevented me.

[tm_anon]

@osvico

What hardware were you using? I just tried to switch once and everything worked immediately, no hardware problems at all.

Actually, from a lot of what I've read, the newest versions of Windows have inferior hardware support for anything but absolute bleeding edge hardware.

Next time you try and transition, you really might want to try out Ubuntu. Every distro has its place, but Ubuntu really is the best for new users.

[teh_chrizzle]

i think that an embedded operating system that is capable of reaching the internet and using web/cloud based applications would be a great tool for mobile and home based workers.

if the OS was on a read only chip that was immune to malware and other nasties, but was still capable of wireless internet access, then if/when windows fails, the machine turns into a thin client that is able to provide access to the corporate network and use networked applications.

think of it as a digital spare tire or escape pod.

[Jonathan]

And the point being? You have virtually instant on with sleep mode in XP. With it being WAY more reliable in Vista and Windows 7. Concerned about battery life or the use of power when you aren't using the system? Hibernate then. As long as you don't have 4GB of memory, an what subnotebook does?, resume from hib is less then 30 seconds. And I'm finding that hib on Win 7 is really fast with even 4GB or more. Not sure how they are pulling that one off.

What this product is for, are people who still think they need to power off the computer when they are done with it, which is just asinine at this point. Yes the power trickle effect is not very environmentally friendly, but again: hib. I'd rather spend 30 seconds and get all the functionality of the system then 5 seconds and get just the basics so I then need to reboot to get into Windows if I want access to more.

[DiBosco]

Jonathan, your argument falls down when you realise Vista needs an absolute minimum of 2G to be anything other than a dog and Win 7, despite all the hype is just Vista with a tweaked UI, so you *do* need lots of RAM.

[cosuna]

"People would never want to hear actors' voices"... or how was that comment made by the guy from MGM. I guess we're here on a whole different ballgame, that neither the author nor anybody else gets. I've been a Vista user since 2007, and a XP user way before, and the emergence of Instant-on OS has nothing to do with real limitations of Vista or Windows 7 (which BTW is still beta, with no real drivers and no real third party overhead).

It has more to do with the "perceived" problems.

Of course sleep mode is "perfect" on XP, Vista and 7. But for whom? I have traveled with my laptop the world over and the only time I accidentally put it to sleep on the plane, it DOA after landing.

On the other hand, hibernate is good, if you machine is not mission critical. I have had delays of 5 to 10 minutes on important meetings, just to wait for Vista to came out of hibernation, connect to the real Wireless network (not the one set up before hib) and have it set up the video card, which now is connected to an InFocus (real situation, real problem).

And then again, why the hell do we have "Hibernate" and "Sleep". Why not a "Pause" option, with a radio button on confirmation (because WE NEED CONFIRMATION, or else you'll have another 1 to 5 minute delay for an erroneous command).

So Instant On OS aren't solutions-looking-for-a-problem. I have seen HyperSpace,Voodoo IOS and SplashTop demos and feel that in 2 or 3 years, we'll be seeing Instant OS solutions in practically every laptop in the market. The cheap ones will get daisy-chained boot (first the Instant On, then Windows on Demand), but the higher end ones will get HyperSpace-like Multiboot, that is you start on the instant on, while Vista or 7 loads, and once both are loaded, you just switch with a Function key.

Great for meetings, for Cloud apps, for Virus prone environments (can't trust your hotel, airport or customers Wireless link) and for situations where 5min is the difference between the unprepared, sloppy saleman, and the instant on, trendy (Linux) guy.

Just my two cents.

[whiplash55]

I see it as a tool for geeks, who are in a hurry. Need to check you email after a long useless meeting before the next long useless meeting? I could see it being viable in a tech savy user, but the average person would just find it a distration. Besides, I'm hoping SSD becomes reasonable priced and fast in the future allowing you to boot into Win 7 pretty damn quickly. My Latitude XT running a vlite enhanced build of Vista, boots to desktop in under a minute and I can be conected to a wireless network in 2 minutes easily, and that's with the slow 4200rpm hard drive. So instant on isn't something I need but if I had it, I'd use it.

[queticomn]

So many talk of the need for speed. The fastest browser. Which browser launches the fastest. Which o/s boots faster. Well, if that what most are looking for, then go figure they would want an instant on o/s too. But this seems not the case, bias perhaps?
I remember my c-64 an how i loved the instant on commodore DOS. I know in the future people will be demanding this feature, only a matter of time.

[mulberrybush]

This would be great for me - I hate doing secure stuff (banking etc) over WiFi from my laptop and don't want multiple networks configured on it/the router etc so generally boot my Windows box which is ethernet cabled. Problem is I also run a Standalone Gaming profile on my windows box which has very few services and no network connectivity running to get those extra FPS. Either profile I try to hibernate rather than cold boot to get in there ASAP. This would fix the problem of having to reboot out of Gaming profile into 'normal' profile to get network connectivity for my secure online transactions.

[Sueober]

Who needs this? I DO - I'm just a regular Joe who doesn't want to sit around and wait for my laptops to boot. If it can get me to Firefox and Google quicker then you can count me in. Whether it's running Linux or Windows, I really couldn't care less as long as it's user friendly.