Microsoft unveils Eiger (jon.linuxworld.com) — If it’s unveiled then where can I get my copy? Or are we using the word to mean pre-announce? I wonder since the article in CIO Magazine had this to say:
Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told reporters that the product is in the very early stages of development with no established launch date or pricing. A few dozen early customers will have the opportunity to use a preview version of the new OS this week.
This will never fly because people are so hungry for a leaner efficient OS that they’d beg off of Longhorn and use this instead on new machines. Looks like a winner for a mini ATX box, eh? Then again maybe it will cut into people re-using W2K over and over with each new machine they build.
I agree. I think MIcrosoft is missing an opportunity. There are plenty of old computers that’d fly with a modern stripped-down OS. Think how fast WinCE would fly on a Pentium system with 32 megs of RAM!
Are you sure it’s not “Liger”? ‘Cause that’s like my favorite animal and stuff.
Interesting idea. It’ll never work though, as the machines currently using 64 or less megs are running fairly fine with WIN 98 or NT4. Those with more power are currently capable of running WIN XP.
In order for this OS to work, the programs running on them will need to be pared back too.
It is a complete waste to cater an OS to older machines when you can buy a new machine for $500.
A lean OS that can connect to a windows server. That sounds great… Wait I already have that using Linux and rdesktop today!
MS could be smart and do a small OS with the same functionality as Win XP BUT without all the bells and whistles such as 10 ways to do the same thing – just one that’s easy to learn would do. Special graphic effects could also go – they what weights the most in XP these days. It should run Office 2003 – or a lite edition of Office 2003, under the same philosophy. Should have networking, Web browsing, email. Wouldn’t have to look much different from XP – just with less customizability (is that a word?).
Yes, old OS run well on older hardware, especially if you take care to adequately pair the OS to the hardware – usually an OS with x years runs great on hardware that’s x-2 years old! But it’s buggier than XP. XP is quite acceptable, actually, but needs tons of hardware.
New machines are quite inexpensive (and almost non-profitable to make) but there’s still zillions of people not being able to justify (I don’t mean afford) such an expense. Many people just don’t know much about computers and to them 500 (more likely 800) bucks still look a bit steep. Even to people who can afford it I usually suggest their first PC should be a second-hand one, if they don’t really know anything about PCs – and therefore don’t really know what they want.
That way they’ll spend less, learn a bit about what they want, and have more money left one or two years down the line when they then know what they really really want.
MS could make a bundle by catering to this group, if the expense in the OS could look almost insignificant.
People complain about spending $500 on a computer but will spend $800 on a TV set, radio, stereo, fancy car etc. You show me a person that can’t afford a $500 computer and I’ll show you someone that has a host of other extravagances.
How about they upgrade win98? ’nuff said.