maemo.org - Talk - UMPC in N770 format

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxbear

Windows "anything" requires a lot more resources, hence a lot more cost. You would not be able to get any windows based device to equal the 770 without at least an 800 meg processor. An example of this is the following: I run dual boot Linux on one hard drive and Windows on the other. This is not an old box, I'm running 2 gig of RAM and SATA drives on an AMD 64. The only thing I use windows for is gaming, everything else is done in Linux. I can run Word 2k using cross-over office on Linux and it opens word in less than half the time that windows requires to open it. Gaming is the only thing that makes me boot windows and that only comprises about 25% of my computer use/

With 64 MB of RAM, I can run Windows 2000 on a 233MHz CPU, load up Opera, and surf to my heart's content, limited by a measly 800x480 display. IRC, video playback, email, MP3s? No problem. It was a Toshiba Libretto, for the record.

What I did need, of course, was a ton of disk space, but that's just how Windows on x86 rolls. I'm not sure how trim XP Embedded can get, but you have to keep in mind that the 770 hardly takes advantage of features that both Linux and Windows have to offer.

Multiple users? Nope. You can gain root access, sure, but can two people have completely separate profiles on the 770 with password protection?

The 770's loading up a *very* tightly optimized UI. In Windows, that's like replacing the Start Menu (explorer.exe) with something like LiteStep. It's also not loading up a firewall service, file sharing, file system indexing, and so on. You're buying a device that has all of these bits trimmed out, and in many cases, replaced entirely. Someone basically did that work for you.

Can I do the same with Windows 2000? Certainly. XP Embedded? Probably. Is it worth my time to cram a 770-like experience onto an aging subminiature x86 laptop? Not really. Hack value aside, $350 and a trip to CompUSA was just far less aggravating, and it gave me a more pocketable device.

People do tend to hideously overestimate what the Windows OS requires, as they associate it with the bloated Windows UI and Microsoft's take on the ideal User Experience. Once you strip that away, you can get something that's very usable on PCs from 1997. The lack of openness behind that is a different story, of course, but you can't win them all. :)