Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one (APCMag) [LWN.net]

Here's an APC Magazine article which proclaims that the Windows-based EeePC 900 will cost less than the Linux version - though the fine print notes that the Linux-based system comes with more storage. "APC played briefly with the machines on show at the launch. The XP version of the Eee boots quite speedily for a Windows box, but is still notably slower than its Linux counterpart. Even Asus' press release promoting the product acknowledges that the Linux machine is faster to get started. 'It provides a fast boot-up time, ideal for quick internet access while waiting for public transport or taking notes on-the-go,' it breathlessly proclaims."

(Log in to post comments)

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one (APCMag)

Posted May 7, 2008 18:21 UTC (Wed) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

The Linux version is $50 more expensive, but has 8GB of SSD storage more, worth about $100.  A
Windows user could find better to buy a Linux EeePC and install his/her now obsolete XP copy.

Linux being treated as a second-class citizen

Posted May 7, 2008 18:29 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

What's more troubling, in my opinion, than the price difference (which is explained by the larger flash memory size in the Linux version) is this statement:

Adding to the impression that Linux is now the poor cousin, the XP version will be sold through "selected retailers" while the Linux machine will be available through "computer resellers".

It's slightly ambiguous, but what I think Asus is saying here is that the Windows version will be available in some mainstream retail shops, while the Linux version will not (you'll only be able to get it through specialist computer shops).

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one (APCMag)

Posted May 7, 2008 18:44 UTC (Wed) by chris144 (subscriber, #30028) [Link]

It would be very interesting to see the details of the deal between Asus and  M$...

The Linux developer support / Linux SDK for Eee PC at least sucks. The stuff they claim in
their SDK PDF on how to add 3rd party packages to the Easy Desktop is incorrect to say the
least. Packages mentioned in the SDK PDF simply do not exist...

It looks as if Asus doesn't care much about developers, developers, developers.

what a mess!

Linux has lots of free software

Posted May 7, 2008 19:34 UTC (Wed) by jsamch (subscriber, #50926) [Link]

Win XP on that machine will get you a slower, less useful machine than one running Linux.  All
the open source software that can be added for free to the unit is a really good selling
point.  Those who will buy the EeePC are not likely to want to run Photoshop or large business
apps on it.  Considering that its a low-cost machine might also mean that they don't have the
hundreds of dollars to spend on software.  

I think some will buy the Windows version and then change it to Linux afterwards, just to be
able to get the cheaper machine.  At least, one can buy the EeePC knowing that its fully
compatible with Linux.

I guess Microsoft is still able to stick in their "tax" on software...

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one (APCMag)

Posted May 7, 2008 19:36 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]

My (completely unfounded) theory is this: Originally Asus wanted the Windows and Linux
versions to cost the same (why? No good reason that I can see, but they wanted that). So, to
offset the Windows (and Works) licenses, Asus gave the Linux version an extra 8GB storage,
which means it has almost twice as much as the Windows version.

Then (according to my completely unfounded theory), Microsoft decided enough was enough with
this 'Linux' thing being installed on mini-notebooks, and dropped the price of Windows
licenses for the Eee to an affordable... $1, or thereabouts, making it cost about the same as
Xandros on the Linux version. Since the hardware remains the same (too late to change it,
SKUs, blah blah), the result is that the Windows version now costs less, with its smaller
storage.

The average consumer might not notice the difference between 12 GB and 20 GB SSDs, even though
one is almost double the size of the other. At least, assuming they use the Eee mainly for web
browsing and that sort of thing. In that case, voilà, Windows machines are cheaper than Linux
ones. It's almost as if Microsoft planned it that way.

Note: This comically (tragically?) ridiculous state of affairs appears to occur only in
Australia, in other areas the Linux and Windows versions appear to be equally priced. For now,
at least.

Cost of Windows XP license and cost of extra storage

Posted May 9, 2008 0:36 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]

A forbes.com article (end of first page and beginning of second) describes the operating system choice as follows:

Asustek decided that the Windows operating system was out of the question. The licensing costs would have been the most expensive part of the computer. So it decided to use Linux and build its own user interface, and that became the most time-consuming part of the project.

[They spend a lot of time on the user interface even though that means slipping the release date.]

Meanwhile, the prospect of millions of new PC users buying the Eee PC without Windows seemed to worry Microsoft. Just before the launch, it agreed to give Eee PC buyers the option of getting Windows for under $40 [USD, i.e. “under ~AU$42”], more than a third off the standard price.

That seems to match with what the first commenter said about the difference between 12GB and 20GB being around $100. More precisely, it's a question of the difference between a 8GB and 16GB SSD, assuming that wikipedia's reporting of a reghardware.co.uk article is correct about the storage being divided into two SSD devices of which one is 4GB. I've conflicting information about how much more 16GB costs than 8GB; some sources suggest that it's only about AU$50.

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one (APCMag)

Posted May 7, 2008 19:48 UTC (Wed) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]

The Linux developer support / Linux SDK for Eee PC at least sucks. The stuff they claim in their SDK PDF on how to add 3rd party packages to the Easy Desktop is incorrect to say the least. Packages mentioned in the SDK PDF simply do not exist...

I've no doubt that it does. However, I've found a better "development kit" for my EEE: "Easy Mode Editor" and a build host running Etch. I've found that packages built for Etch will install perfectly provided that:

1. They don't conflict or remove any package with "asus" or ""xandros" in the package name.
2. They don't replace any QT, kdelibs, or kde-core packages. The default interfaces and config tools are implemented with those.

This works because the Xandros Linux installed on these things is a bastardized version of Etch.

This leaves quite the large number of things you can build and install. I backported the latest mplayer from unstable with all the goodies enabled and installed that on my EEE among many other things. It's also running OpenOffice 2.4, Adobe Reader 8.1.2, the latest Flash, and so-forth.

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one? Not in the UK

Posted May 8, 2008 7:43 UTC (Thu) by fsphil (guest, #44932) [Link]

In the UK the two models are the same price. I got mine yesterday (the Linux version
naturally) and so far I'm really impressed. The large screen is a huge improvement over the
original models.

Windows-based EeePC cheaper than Linux one? Not in the NZ either

Posted May 8, 2008 11:41 UTC (Thu) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link]

Both the ASUS Eee PC 900 XP version and the ASUS Eee PC 900 Linux are NZ$749 ( incl GST sales tax ).

What is more of a concern is that if you convert the price over to Australian Dollars the Linux version is AUD$33.50 more expensive than its NZ counterpart even including the NZ GST.

Xandros/Linux “top of the line”

Posted May 9, 2008 0:42 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]

Interestingly, this creates the situation that the Xandros / Linux operating system is the “top-of-the-line” choice, with Windows XP only offered on the cheaper, less capable alternative.