Windows 7 Hits 3% Market Share, Approaches 4%

There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.

The basic problem, lemur, is that no one cares.

This will be interesting. Someone cares enough to have ported their entire benchmarking test suite to Windows 7.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzY3OA

This has a lot more meat to it. This will be a far better indication of relative performance than mere videos of Ubuntu 9.10 beating all Windows comers in boot-up speed.

I wonder if Microsoft will try to get an injunction against Phoronix publishing the comparison results when they get them? (possibly on the basis of some legal fluffery in the Windows 7 EULA against testing the software).

There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.

just tried it on my laptop with a total of 40s (excluding bios like in the video)

i would show you a video but my cam can only record for 40s, so the last second where ff is rendering the page is missing :/

It is not a performance comparison unless you try different OSes on the exact same hardware.

When you do that … when you run Ubuntu/Kubuntu on the exact same hardware as Windows 7, and you compare performance, Ubuntu/Kubuntu wins easily.

OpenOffice.org 3.1.1, which comes with Kubuntu/Ubuntu at no cost, and which has about 25% of the installed base of Office suites, is arguably a better Office suite than the expensive aftermarket MS Office add-on for Windows 7.

Here is a quick summary of why this is so, for people who would desperately try to that claim this is not so:

http://why.openoffice.org/index.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_great.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_easy.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_free.html

Remember, we are comparing this to Wordpad, Paint and Calc.

As I said, Kubuntu/Ubuntu comes with vastly more and better quality desktop software than Windows 7.

QED.

http://why.openoffice.org/why_sme.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_gov.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_edu.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_nfp.html

http://why.openoffice.org/why_oem.html

Aw, heck, why not:

http://why.openoffice.org/why_foss.html

Edited 2009-11-03 10:25 UTC

Remember, we are comparing this to Wordpad, Paint and Calc. As I said, Kubuntu/Ubuntu comes with vastly more and better quality desktop software than Windows 7.

Has it ever occurred to you that Microsoft might be restricted in what it can include in the operating system by … oh, I dunno … ANTITRUST considerations? Consequently, it can only provide functionality offered by Apple, Canonical, and other vendors as a downloadable add-on? Otherwise, 20 state AGs, the US Department of Justice, and the all EC take Microsoft back to court and sue them for violating the consent decree related to illegal tying. So, really, what are you trying to say? That Canonical can include a better Wordpad, Paint, and Calc on the Ubuntu install disk? Whoopie freakin’ doo. What an amazing feat: Tie Microsoft’s hands behind its back and declare victory. LMAO!

Doesn’t matter one whit to a person buying a machine.

The relevant questions to ask are these:

(1) What software does it come with?

(2) What can that software do, and what can’t it do?

(3) How much does it ALL cost?

Question number 3 is relevant because you certainly CAN buy systems where MS Office is pre-installed for you at additional cost.

A new system with Kubuntu/Ubuntu is miles and miles in front compared with one with Windows 7 against these simple criteria. Light years ahead.

Hmmm… It would seem that there exist Windows bashers that beg big government to restrict what Microsoft can ship with Windows, then those same Windows bashers point to the lack of bundled apps as a reason to bash Windows and as a selling point for other OSes. Funny how that works. And if Microsoft were to respond to such criticisms by bundling more stuff, those very same Windows bashers would be among the first folks calling on big government to put a stop to it. And then they’d continue to point to lack of bundled apps as a reason to bash Windows and promote other OSes. Funny how that works.

Here is my actual view on this Molly.

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software, it is cheaper and faster to run, running it on as many machines as you want carries no risks with respect to license compliance, it runs on a vastly wider array of existing desktop hardware, it supports a significantly wider array of data formats, it even has more desktop “bling”, and if you are prepared to stick to installing software only from open source repositories, it is guaranteed to get no malware.

And further:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?392415

If proprietary software vendors advocate choice, why not let OEMs and retail stores install Linux, and offer it for sale without penalty in stores side-by-side on the same machines as Windows?

That way typical customers could truly choose.

Only when that applies, that OEMs and retail stores are allowed to install Linux, and offer it for sale without penalty in stores side-by-side on the same machines as Windows, then what Microsoft bundles with Windows is completely a non-issue.

If they bundle more functionality, then their price on the shelf would rise dramtically. If they leave out the functionality (as they currently do), then the observation that “Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software” would still very much apply.

Bundling is only a problem if people aren’t offered a choice other than to take the whole bundle or nothing at all. Bundling is only a problem when a monopoly supplier does it.

Give people a fair choice of available alternatives, at their actual prices, let them see their choices side-by-side in direct value-for-money comparisons, and then let them choose.

That is a free market consumer choice, and nothing else is.

Now why don’t you have a go at criticising that actual view, and not one that you made up from somewhere.

Edited 2009-11-04 01:12 UTC

Give people a fair choice of available alternatives, at their actual prices, let them see their choices side-by-side in direct value-for-money comparisons, and then let them choose. That is a free market consumer choice, and nothing else

You’re confused about who operating system customers are. Let me enlighten you: OEMs are OS customers, not consumers. Consumers buy WHOLE COMPUTERS, not operating systems. OEMs account for 99% of all OS sales/installs, and OEMs are free to sell whatever they like to consumers. They aren’t bound by Microsoft in any way. You would think that Linux would be more attractive to OEMs, but they can’t seem to sell Linux — even when it’s priced at zero. Sure, blame the OEM, if you like, but don’t try to argue that the market isn’t free. You just don’t like the fact that the market backed a different product.

OEMs are indeed customers for Microsoft licensing. OEMs receive a huge “discount” from Microsoft for the price that they pay to Microsoft for each license, provided that they offer Windows exclusively. Retail outlets are subjected to similar deals.

A good example is in the story of netbooks. Initially, these were sold only with Linux (Xandros was a very poor choice of Linux distribution, but it was nevertheless Linux). XP was being withdrawn at the time, and Vista wouldn’t run on the machines. Other manufacturers started to build similar machines (but somehow they all had very poor Linux distributions, mostly from Linux vendors who had signed a deal with Microsoft, and all of which were either “locked down” or had only very sparsely populated repositories. Hmmm. Where was an unconstrained, open Debian or Ubuntu model? Why did many have closed-source-driver-only wireless chips?).

Within a few months, once the netbooks had begun to sell in significant numbers, Microsoft brought XP Home out of mothballs. They allowed OEMs to put XP on newer model netbooks (which suddenly had hard drives added to their design in order to accomodate XP) at a bargain basement price provided Linux was not offered on the same model.

In my area, and as far as I know it happened all over the world in a similar fashion, one week you could buy Linux netbooks in retail stores, and the very next weekend you couldn’t. Not a one for sale. Hmmmm. Remarkable that all that stock just disappeared overnight, no?

After a while, Microsoft even began to set hardware limits on netbooks. How does Microsoft get to do this?? Microsoft don’t make the hardware! They get to do this by saying that they will not give OEMs that “discount” price if their netbooks exceed the stipulated specifications.

Retail stores and OEMs are NOT free to sell whatever they like to consumers. Not if they also want to sell Windows at a competitive price.

This is why you get a few vendors who sell Linux only, and the majority of vendors who sell Windows only.

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php

http://www.system76.com/

Zareason and System 76 don’t get any “discounted price” for selling Windows licenses, because they sell Ubuntu. Zareason and System76 couldn’t sell a Windows machine as an alternative, because its price would be horrendous.

This way, you just don’t get any machines with an Ubuntu OS pre-installed in the same brick-and-mortar store sold side-by-side with Windows machines with the exact same hardware.

Consumers don’t get to do any such a side-by-side hands on comparison. Consumers don’t get any choices offered to them.

Edited 2009-11-04 04:23 UTC

Do you have actual evidence of this? I believe that this particular thing is against the Consent Decree Microsoft agreed to with the DOJ. This is supposedly being enforced by the US Federal Courts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-netbook-hardware…

http://apcmag.com/microsoft-revises-netbook-hardware-spec-for-windo…

How does Microsoft get to specify a hardware limit?

Hmmmmm?

They do it by saying … “beyond that limit, you cannot have Windos cheap”.

Therefore, Microsoft sets the price of Windows to OEMs depending on what machines the OEMs want Windows for. It doesn’t actually matter to Microsoft’s costs one whit if an OEM wants to put Windows on small machine with one, two or three GB of RAM … but Microsoft varies the price to the OEM tremendously based on exactly that.

Therefore, there is no OEM price for Windows based on what it cost Microsoft to produce. It is based only on how Microsoft wants to manipulate the market. Microsoft manipulates the OEMs using its price to OEMs. That much is easily shown.

This is not illegal AFAIK, but it does tell you what goes on, and based on the market reality (where no vendor displays Windows machines and Ubuntu machines on the same hardware side-by-side in the same store) … draw your own conclusions.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one side, you say that Linux is the best thing since sliced bread, much better than Windows, runs on all hardware, lower price, etc, etc. And, on the other, you claim that Microsoft’s hardware spec for netbooks precludes OEMs from offering a version of Linux that could possibly run on that hardware. I’m sorry, but I call BS. The problem isn’t that no version of Linux exists that could run on MS-spec’d hardware. The problem is that nobody wants Linux. OEMs tried selling Linux, and the return rate was ungodly high.

I’m sorry, but I call BS.

MSI claimed the return rate was high, but when MSI put Linux on their machines they used a poor implementation of SuSe with a dodgy wireless driver.

Ask Dell (who used Ubuntu). The return rate for Linux was the same as the return rate for Windows, and it was very low.

People wanted Windows and, when they discovered that their netbooks were preloaded with Linux, they were, like, “WTF?!? Where’s my Windows?”

So was the marketing claim from Redmond, which you apparently swalled whole. The actual truth lies somehwere else entirely.

You see, Dell also point out that they still sell about one third of their netbook machines with Linux.

http://blog.laptopmag.com/one-third-of-dell-inspiron-mini-9s-sold-r…

http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/Dell-Linux-vs.-Windows-…

The return rate for Linux netbooks are no higher than that for Windows, says a Dell product manager, declaring Microsoft’s claims otherwise as a “non-issue.”

Netbooks with Linux are in no way being returned more often than those with Windows — at least not those from Dell. This according to Todd Finch, senior product marketing manager at the world’s second largest PC provider, at OpenSource World in San Francisco. Finch described Microsoft’s claim that consumers returned Linux netbooks at a rate four to five times that of Windows as “making something of nothing.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/dell_reality_linux_windows_…

Microsoft is famous for having locked down the retail channel by providing retailers with cash and marketing resources to enable everything from endorsements of Windows on PCs to stocking and positioning of product in the stores and on shelves.

I think the worst thing about your stream of illogic is that you ascribe motives to Microsoft (eg. controlling the hardware spec, manipulating OEMs) which (a) are patently false and contrary to the objective reality of the consent decree, and (b) couldn’t possibly hinder Linux, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE. This is why people have trouble taking you seriously.

Au contraire, it is you who have provided absolutely no backup to support your take on things.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/314907/dell_looks_linux_expand_net…

I can keep going all day here.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5214623279.html

couldn’t possibly hinder Linux, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE.

Now this is interesting.

What I think would really sell is a very low-power 11-inch 1280×800 screen (perhaps a Pixel-Qi screen) at the overall same size as current 10-inch netbook models (by removing the wide bezel). Give it 4GB RAM, and a dual core processor at 2GHz. Make it cheap, use an SSD (say 32GB, and low power … no moving parts) direct to the I/O system (so therefore very fast) and use a wear-levelling non-journalling filesystem. With decent design choices, such a system could easily perform better than current high-end laptops, but use so little power that they would be lightweight, still netbook-class-small, hence ultraportable, and able to run for a couple of days on a single charge.

Such a machine would gut the higher-end laptop/notebook market, IMHO.

Microsoft’s problems here are many … making it inexpensive removes headroom for Microsoft to charge for their OS. Microsoft don’t have a wear-levelling filesystem. There is no use case for such a machine that would mandate expensive Windows-only proprieatary applications. People might want to use copies they already own of legacy binary-only (32 bit) applications, but a 32-bit Windows OS on a 32-bit machine can’t use all of the 4GB of RAM. Microsoft’s bloated OS offerings wouldn’t leave much room on the SSD disk for users files. Because of the complex instruction decoders, the x86 architecture uses extra power consumption per core, so a dual core x86 doesn’t make as much sense in an ultra-low-power design as an ARM chip.

Linux on such a system would have none of these issues at whatsoever. It would fly.

Microsoft don’t want people to know this kind of information.

So Microsoft use their existing dominant postion to preclude innovative new non-Windows designs such as these from getting a foothold.

MSI claimed the return rate was high, but when MSI put Linux on their machines they used a poor implementation of SuSe with a dodgy wireless driver.

And this is somehow supposed to be a selling point for Linux-based netbooks?

No, it is a comment on the stupidity of some OEMs. When MSI designed their U90 netbook, the only OS that it would run was Linux (as XP was being withdrawn). Yet they designed in a wireless chip that had only an experimental Linux driver, even though there were plenty of other wireless chips they could have used without a problem.

How stupid was that? THEN they complained that people were returning their MSI netbooks because of flaky wireless! Der!

Ask Dell (who used Ubuntu). The return rate for Linux was the same as the return rate for Windows, and it was very low.

Let’s put this in terms you can understand. By your own admission, Dell sells Windows on about 70% of all netbooks today. That’s over twice the number of Linux netbooks sold. [Personally, I think the percentage of Windows-based netbooks in the broader market is probably closer to 95%. But I digress.]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140343/Linux_s_share_of_net…

Nearly one-third of the 35 million netbooks on track to ship this year will come with some variant of the free, open-source operating system, ABI Research said. The exact split is 32% Linux versus 68% Windows, said Jeff Orr, an analyst at ABI, which works out to about 11 million Linux netbooks this year.

68%, but we digress.

Here’s what Dell says: “The number of Linux returns are approximately the same as those for Windows netbooks.” Read that line carefully. He didn’t say the return percentage. He said “the number of returns.” What that means (to the mathematically challenged) is that more than twice as many Linux netbooks are being returned as Windows netbooks. Wow. That must burn. Kind of like a vampire getting hit with holy water.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/dell_reality_linux_windows_…

we don’t see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux. We’ve been quite pleased with the stability and technical soundness of the Linux machines.

Dell said “return rate”.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/13/dell-refutes-high-linux-netbook-…

Dell’s Senior Product Marketing Manager Todd Finch is refuting that last claim, saying “we don’t see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux.”

Yep. “return rate” is what Dell’s Finch said.

As I mentioned earlier, MS is forbidden by consent decree from preventing OEMs from choosing alternate platforms.

Being forbidden doesn’t stop Microsoft from doing it, however.

And if, as you claim, Linux is as good as you think it is, there’s no reason why Linux can’t run on any MS-spec’d hardware.

Oh, it can. MS-spec’d hardware is actually an overkill for Linux. It actually pushes the price of netbooks up higher than it needs to be.

Microsoft’s problems here are many … making it inexpensive removes headroom for Microsoft to charge for their OS. Microsoft don’t have a wear-levelling filesystem.

Again, so what. Microsoft’s hardware spec doesn’t preclude Linux from competing. It either works — or it doesn’t. If you don’t think it works, then take your ball and go home. Otherwise, stop blaming MS for failure of Linux to own the netbook market.

It makes the price higher than it needs to be. That is bad for consumers.

Oh, and it makes the performance way worse. If an SSD was just flash memory with a direct block I/O to a CPU bus, with the wear-levelling built into the filesystem, then it would be far faster than a hard disk.

Instead, to accommodate Microsoft OSes lack of a wear-levelling filesystem, SSDs are built with a microcontroller to do the wear-levelling, which slows it all own.

BTW … 32% of the worldwide market this year for Linux is hardly a failure. Now if it were only possible to somehow get through to those like you who will not listen, it would become possible to save you too a great deal of expense for your computing.

Edited 2009-11-05 10:10 UTC

I’m quoting from the article you posted:

Todd Finch, Dell senior product marketing manager, said the number of Linux returns are approximately the same as those for Windows netbooks.

He didn’t say percentage. He said number. Spin it any way you like. The fact is that Linux netbooks are returned twice as much as Windows netbooks. LOL!

Pffft.

For every link you find where it was misreported, I can point to a hundred quotes that say otherwise.

“Not a problem”.

“Not an issue”.

“Same return rate for Linux as Windows”.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dell+finch+return+netbooks&ie=utf…

LOL indeed.

My but you Windows supporters are getting desperate.

You’re not going to convince me of anything until you start getting more reasonable. Making wild-assed claims without even the slightest amount of evidence isn’t endearing anyone to your cause.

Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil … where evil is tautologically defined defined as a bad word against Microsoft.

Sigh!

The three monkeys would be smarter than you, I’m afraid.

Edited 2009-11-05 11:12 UTC

For every link you find where it was misreported, I can point to a hundred quotes that say otherwise.

Look, you supplied the link! I can’t help it if you failed to scrutinize the article carefully enough. Now you want to claim that your own supplied article was “misreported”? Tsk, tsk. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

“Not a problem”.

“Not an issue”.

http://www.liliputing.com/2009/08/dell-linux-windows-netbook-return…

Dell: Linux, Windows netbook return rates are about the same

Quoth the Dell sales manager to a roomful of Linux zealots.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dell+finch+return+netbooks&ie=utf…

125,000 hits.

Did you actually expect him to claim that getting back twice as many Linux netbooks as Windows netbooks on a percentage basis was “success”? LMFAO!

What part of “the same return rate as Windows” did you fail to understand?

News Flash: Sales Manager Says Positive Things About His Product!

News Flash: Microsoft PR puts out false claim about Linux that requires correcting! Windows fanbois still believe Microsoft!

Edited 2009-11-05 11:22 UTC

ABI hasn’t released actual numbers, so it’s impossible to verify. Domestically, in the US, Linux on netbooks accounts for less than 5% of the market. Which is why I never see anyone running it. As for abroad, it’s highly likely that people are paving their netbooks with pirated copies of XP, not running Linux.

Crikey mate, “in the US” is not domestically. I live down under, I’m an Ozzie. Over here, people wipe machines formerly infested with Windows and its copious malware, and install Linux to get them working nicely.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090318-koga…

Netbook designed in Australia by user survey, ends up with Ubuntu derivative OS. I’m typing this meassage on a Kogan Agora Pro netbook. It is now running Kubuntu 9.10. Very nicely.

As for worldwide, in the “broadest” of all possible markets, they are not nearly as stupid as the domestic US market, it would seem.

Deal with it.

Edited 2009-11-05 11:50 UTC

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software

Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could’ve actually enjoyed that desktop software you’re talking about.

As it stands now, I’m using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips.

Fail.

Ubuntu don’t write the Intel graphics drivers, Intel does.

Intel graphics chips work fine on each machine I have tried which has an Intel GPU. Admittedly, that is a very small sample set.

Is this the bug?

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+…

It is confirmed, and set to high importance.

Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-02

tags: added: karmic

Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-04

Changed in xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu):

status: Incomplete ^a+’ Confirmed

Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-04

Changed in xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu):

importance: Undecided ^a+’ High

So you cannot say that Ubuntu didn’t test it, only that Intel apparently haven’t fixed it yet.

That’s just one of the countless ways the problem acts out. Some people have it crashing during install, others during live CD, and again others during the first few minutes of use. Others, even, during the use of specific applications. It happens on fresh installs as well as dist-upgraded ones.

The common denominator? Intel video chips.

I might remind you here that I have installed and run Kubuntu 9.10 on several different systems with Intel video chips without any problems at all.

Having said that, there are reports of problems for a significant number, which is a surprise I must say:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic_koala_frustration/

Finger-pointing is the usual response from the Linux community, and you fall in line like a perfect little monkey. If the current Intel video driver is to blame (which I doubt, since this problem is Ubuntu-specific) then Ubuntu should ship with a driver that DOES work. That is their responsibility.

Imagine going to restaurant, and then ordering a nice dinner. However, the meat is completely rotten, and tastes like vomit. Would you accept it when the chef says: “hey, my meat guy shipped me this rotten meat. Go complain to him, it’s his fault.”?

Of course you wouldn’t. You would ask the chef why he didn’t use some other meat.

“Its the OEMs fault” is the exact same response you get whenever you point out that poor quality drivers (or lack thereof) crash and burn Windows 7.

What is good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

Edited 2009-11-03 11:15 UTC

”Its the OEMs fault” is the exact same response you get whenever you point out that poor quality drivers (or lack thereof) crash and burn Windows 7.

Apples and oranges.

We’re comparing default installations, without added software. You will NOT find crappy drivers included in the default install of Windows 7 in the same way this crappy Intel driver is included in Ubuntu.

I beg to differ. Many times I have installed Windows and have been unable to get the correct resolution for the attached monitor until I installed the OEM driver (that did NOT come with Windows).

And, we still haven’t pinpointed this problem to the Intel driver – other distributions do not seem to have issues, only Ubuntu, so it might be something else.

OK. There does seem to be a problem for many people that I haven’t encountered, and that wasn’t seen in the beta or the RC. Someone must have goofed.

Perhaps a suggestion would be to revert to the RC until the bug is fixed, then update.

Edited 2009-11-03 11:21 UTC

Come on this is ridiculous every new release has some problems, look at the auto-reboot problems for windows 7.

Also, look at the sate of nVidia drivers when Vista was first released.

Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could’ve actually enjoyed that desktop software you’re talking about. As it stands now, I’m using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips. Fail.

Here you go, Thom, this may be a work-around for you: http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/11/are-your-graphics-dead-in-…

Or, if that work-around doesn’t float your boat, then Mandriva 2010 is out:

http://blog.mandriva.com/2009/11/04/mandriva-linux-2010-is-out/

Enjoy.

You can throw all the URL links you want at me about Win7 vs Ubuntu, but even Windows XP is better than anything Linux can do now, in terms of just working without any hassles.

Not true.

If you are in any doubt at all, just buy a Linux system in the same way that you would buy a Windows system. Buy a system with Linux pre-installed.

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php

http://www.system76.com/

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&l=en&c…

When you are comparing things, you should after all try to compare apples with apples.

I have used all the OS flavors, and Windows is on top for a reason: everything supports windows.

Nope.

http://www.hellosmartbook.com/index.php

With Linux, when you buy a new laptop, you have to make sure if everything is supported, otherwise you will have to spend hours setting up everything to work right, by reading random internet forums where people have had the same problems.

Nope. Not if you buy a laptop with Linux pre-installed, as you would a Windows laptop.

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php?cat=250

Ubuntu is getting better and better all the time, but I have probably spent hundreds of hours tinkering with things that don’t work over the years, when I could have just used windows and not had any problems.

Or you could have bought an Ubuntu system pre-installed and not had any problems.

And now, with Microsoft releasing a decent operating system (unlike Vista), Linux is going to have an even harder time being adopted.

I doubt it. Very much.

Netbooks are trying to go up-spec trying to support higher Windows 7 requirements, and turning themselves into small notebooks instead, with no price advantage.

http://www.liliputing.com/2009/11/nvidia-is-giving-away-a-dozen-ion…

Meanwhile, ARM has released the Cortex A9 dual core 2 GHz CPU design, and shortly that will be appearing in inexpensive netbook-class machines that cannot run Windows at all (let alone Windows 7) but which will run Ubuntu (with very good performance) for a couple of days on a single charge.

http://www.arm.com/news/25922.html

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/16/arm-breaks-2ghz-barrier-with-d…

ARM has just announced the development of a dual core mobile processor capable of breaking the 2GHz barrier. The 40nm Cortex-A9 CPU will use conventional silicon chips and each CPU core will consume less than 0.25 watts of power.

While ARM^aEURTMs aiming the chip at ^aEURoeapplications such as set-top boxes, DTVs, printers, and other feature-rich consumer and high-density enterprise applications,^aEUR the SmartBook and MID movements could probably make some waves by using dual-core 2GHz setups as well.

Meanwhile, whole countries are adopting Linux.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8309583.stm

Edited 2009-11-03 12:32 UTC

Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows. And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs. As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother? And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.

Unlike a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, none of this software is pre-installed on a Windows 7 machine when you buy one.

If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?

But how to run apps without XP, on a modern operating system?

Get a work-alike open source application.

OpenOffice can work with legacy MS Offcie files, and it spanks MS Office working with ODF files.

GIMP does just as good a job as Photoshop in editing raster graphics files.

And so on.

Edited 2009-11-03 05:45 UTC