I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that the OEM requirements
for XP on a low-cost machine equate a third-rate technology score for the
target countries. A machine packing a punch of 1GHz processing power, 1GB
RAM, 80GB hard drive and running Windows XP is a more-than-capable machine
for almost all desktop tasks the "average" user needs to get by.
How does that make it third-rate? Unless you're a gamer or have some other
requirements that demand a stalwart machine, a faster processor, more RAM
and more hard disk space are merely non-needed extras.
If I read the gist of the target areas correctly, the idea is that low-cost
machines can reach developing countries to better get them into the current
times. These machines would really be targeted for beginner and novice computer
users (I used "average" up above). What kind of stuff does a beginner
or novice do on a computer that these low-cost XP machines won't be able to
do? I know MySpace and YouTube work just fine. Where they will be limited
is their actual Internet connection and speed, not the processing power.
If I recall correctly, IBM was trying to do the same with mainframe sales
in the late '60s and early '70s. IBM was only allowing older mainframes (that
had just come off lease) to be sold to India. India wanted to buy the latest
powerful mainframes but was rebuffed. India complained about this treatment,
to no avail, and so banned the sale of IBM products in India for 20 years.
The required max specs will allow XP to run OK on these machines. Most
importantly (to MS), low-end XP "starter systems" make the Microsoft
brand imprint for future sales of any MS product, in the brain cells of potentially
decamillions of future consumers and workers. That says it all.
This is not about what's fair. It's about Microsoft competing with Linux
in emerging markets. Though technically Vista-capable, these LCPC specifications
are robust enough for XP as well as for Linux -- though XP Home is somewhat
crippled for anyone but users with minimal needs. As for these LCPCs being
"too lame," that's up to the buyers of these systems to determine.
A lame computer is better than no computer at all. From what we've seen so
far, interest in these $200 systems (a la OLPC) has been lukewarm at best
-- and no one is telling Third World governments that they cannot buy more
robust Vista systems. Or that they cannot downgrade those systems to XP Pro
themselves. Further, you cannot tell me that for the right quantity, Microsoft
wouldn't permit an OEM to make a deal with a Third World government for XP
Pro on any box they sell at any price point.
The point is, it makes no sense for anyone with a Vista Premium-ready
system not to run Vista. It's in the user's best interest, it's in the OEM's
best interest and it's in Microsoft's best interest. Microsoft must also look
out for its OEMs, who cannot make any money on LCPCs except in very large
quantities. For OEMs, $500 is pretty much the lowest they can afford to sell
a single PC. By prohibiting their OEMs form selling XP, they are really protecting
their OEMs by limiting their support costs to a single platform. Keep in mind
that there is also a Vista Starter Edition tailored to these LCPC specifications.
Keeping XP Home around for these Vista-capable LCPC devices is no more than
Microsoft offering a bone to XP zealots to keep them busy.
It looks like those same folks who control Microsoft absolutely loved
the 1975 cult movie "Rollerball." James Caan is XP, if you know
what I mean. As far as fairness goes, the fact is, the Third World is third-rate
for a reason. They can't cut it for economic, political or infrastructure
reasons. At least they won't have Vista shoved down their throats unless they
actually want it.
We can all say it would be nice if Microsoft would let us have what we
want, but the simple fact of the matter is you (and I) don't matter -- not
to Microsoft. Soon, I will eliminate having a computer at home. No more viruses,
no more unsolicited e-mail, no more "you have to buy our new stuff or
else what you have won't work anymore" and, finally, much more money
in my pocket and not theirs.
-Tired of the Game
Microsoft's push to Vista is the best reason why Microsoft should have
been broken up years ago. Many of us use regulated software that cannot run
on Vista and the inability to obtain new PCs with XP having any power is going
to cripple many critical operations, including many in health care.
I am not a proponent of legislation to regulate industries, but in this
case, Congress needs to mandate that Microsoft continue to produce and distribute
XP with no strings attached. Then the mistake that was made in not breaking
up Microsoft needs to be undone. Regulation only occurs when there is abuse
of a dominant condition. There is no question that Microsoft has the ability
to adversely affect the public good.
Thoughts? Comments? Let us have 'em! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail