back to article Heads up, Chromebook: Here come the sub-$200 Windows 8.1 portables

Microsoft has been promising dirt-cheap Windows 8.1 devices for months now, and as the IFA 2014 consumer electronics conference kicks off in Berlin this week, the first round of penny-pinching Windows kit has finally started to arrive. Acer, Asus, and Toshiba have each announced sub-$200 Windows tablets or laptops at the show …

Page:

  1. Number6

    So how many of these have secure boot locked down so they're useless? I finally managed to get Linux to boot on a bigger Asus laptop, but that wasn't locked down. I know the Surface tablets were locked, it will be interesting to know if the netbooks are too.

    How do they compare performance-wise with the original Eee PC and Aspire One machines?

    1. Christian Berger

      In an ideal world, we'd have laws against "secure" boot, since it effectively shortens the lifespan of a device artificially, creating incredible amounts of waste. After all the whole point about it is to prevent the second part of it's lifetime when people buy those devices used and install a different operating system on them. So instead of just installing a modern Linux on your laptop instead of the unsupported 5 year old Version of Windows, your only option is to stop using it at all.

      1. Nigel 11

        There's the VM option (install VMWare Player, install Linux into a VM, treat Windows as the world's slowest bootloader). That depends on whether the CPU supports VMWare (do Intel still make any that don't?) and whether it has enough RAM.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      My wife still has the sub £180 Asus with Win7 installed I bought her. The screen is an abomination and I have suggested a tablet might not be such a bad idea.

      There is no changing her mind, but I'm buggered that I will buy something like this again with such poor screen resolution.

      For £50-100 more you can get quite a decent 'proper' laptop that is not restricted, strangled and has a squinty screen.

      So why the hell bother with them?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        So why the hell bother with them?

        Because some people are content with their abusive relationship with Microsoft, oblivious that they're able to do much much better and have been convinced that they'll be unable to survive without them.

      2. Queasy Rider

        Bought an Acer 9' Aspire One with XP years ago. Liked it so much I hooked it up to a 22' monitor to be my main computer. (Still was till last month.) Then I caught an Asus netbook on sale so cheap that I grabbed it to carry around. That piece of crap was so slow that when I accidentally stepped on in and destroyed the screen, my first thought wasn't " Oh my, I just destroyed almost $200. worth of kit," but "I should have done that sooner." I honestly don't know what the difference was between the two machines, but they were day and night in performance. I suspect we'll discover the same with this newest crop (and probably some crap.)

        P.S. After I gave the Asus to a buddy who hooked it up to a large screen to run his electronic map program on his boat, I went out and bought a 17" Toshiba laptop so I could actually read my screen without a squint inducing headache. It was a Vista but I learned to live with it because the price was right. Life is a compromise, sigh.

    3. dogged

      > So how many of these have secure boot locked down so they're useless?

      Since none of them run Windows RT, the exact number with "secure boot locked down" is "none". It will be enabled but all have the official badges on and thus must have the facility to disable Secure Boot in BIOS.

      Don't you think all this secure boot FUD has gone far enough now? Seriously?

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Secure boot doesn't make them useless. It makes them useless to the 1% of people who want to buy them as cheap kit and rip a different OS on.

        1. Anonymous Bullard

          It makes them useless to the 1% of people who want to buy them as cheap kit and rip a different OS on

          Some folks like to actually own the equipment they buy.

          There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows (both artificial and technical).

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

            If you're not happy with the limitations of Windows don't buy a Windows tablet.

            1. Khaptain Silver badge

              Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

              @Sabroni

              AFAIK there is no such thing as a windows portable. Windows is an operating system not a piece of hardware.

              Unless of course you mean a Microsoft Monopoly Sponsored portable.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                Excuse me, how many people run a different OS on an iPad?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                  "how many people run a different OS on an iPad?"

                  We're talking about buying cheap hardware to re-use for different purposes, here.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                    So the problem is not SecureBoot itself, it's jus MS and greed/cheap people? Why someone should not be able to run a different OS on an iPad/iPhone if (s)he wants so? Are we speaking of freedom, or just greed? Should Toshiba, Asus and others not be allowed what Apple is allowed to do? And why?

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                    "We're talking about buying cheap hardware to re-use for different purposes, here."

                    So, you're saying that if the vendor tripled the price into Apple territory, it would be fine to lock it down for a particular OS as Apple does? But because it's cheap, it's morally wrong to impose such a restriction on it!?

                    That is a rather bizarre point of view.

                    It seems to me the real reason people object is that they still regard Microsoft as a monopoly, which with the variety of computing devices available these days, it isn't. I'd argue Apple and Google are equally as bad now, but old heads have not quite caught up to this way of thinking yet.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                      So, you're saying that if the vendor tripled the price into Apple territory

                      At Apple prices, I wouldn't buy it just to hack/break it. (In fact, I wouldn't buy anything that over priced)

                      By the way, the Microsoft monopoly no longer exists. MS just want you to think that.

                  3. JeffyPoooh
                    Pint

                    Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                    AC: " '...iPad?' We're talking about buying cheap hardware..."

                    The 'Apple tax' on the $280Cdn iPad Mini (non-retina) versus the $280Cdn Google Nexus 7 is approximately ZERO. One may argue about differences between the two, but the 'Apple tax' is rapidly trending towards zero.

                    (In case it matters: No, not a fanboy. We have several of each ecosystem, because that's the best option.)

                    1. Steve Knox

                      Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                      AC: " '...iPad?' We're talking about buying cheap hardware..."

                      The 'Apple tax' on the $280Cdn iPad Mini (non-retina) versus the $280Cdn Google Nexus 7 is approximately ZERO.

                      Now you're just comparing Apples to Apples, which would be fine if Apples were the subject of discussion. But we're discussing Lemons here.

                      To paraphrase that into the literal, Google Nexus is a prime brand in the Android ecosystem, as Samsung is, as Microsoft is in the Windows tablet ecosystem, and as Apple is in the iThing ecosystem.

                      But we're talking about Acers and the like here, devices which have much the same features, but usually lower-power CPUs/GPUs, maybe a little less RAM, etc. For 7" tablets, these generally retail in the $100-$175 range, far lower than the prime brands.

                      These entry-level Windows netbooks fall into that category as well, as they are below average spec for the Windows portable ecosystem in all respects.

                      The Chromebooks they compete with actually don't fall into that category, though, because they are the average spec for their ecosystem.

                    2. J 3

                      Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                      Well, the non-Retina iPad mini is much inferior hardware compared to the Nexus 7 (2013 and up), at least in my book. Starting with the screen, but much else too. So it would not be surprising if the prices were similar, obviously. But when both of them were new... The mini was grossly overpriced -- or the Nexus 7 2 grossly subsidized, if you wish...

                2. Philippe

                  Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                  About just as many running a different OS on their Android tablet.

              2. GitMeMyShootinIrons

                Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

                "Unless of course you mean a Microsoft Monopoly Sponsored portable."

                Would that be as opposed to Google Monopoly Sponsored portables? Compare the number of Android tablets and phones to Windows and I think you'll see my point.

                The days of MS being a full-on monopoly are largely over (and a good, healthy thing too - though now we have Google going down a similar road), however, bleating on about the bad old days does rather sound like a pensioner still refusing to buy German because of the war.

            2. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

              If you're not happy with the limitations of Windows don't buy a Windows tablet.

              Who said tablet? It's a sub-$200 portable.

              When MS yanked support for XP and forgot to offer paid-for support for the vast majority of users, the suggest upgrade path was 'Install Windows 8', however the average XP computer would grind to a halt with Windows 8.

              Happily, without secure boot, people have the option of installing another OS and avoiding contributing to landfill.

              Now unfortunately it might be accepted that tablets are locked-down but the same principle should apply. People with early tablets have the useful lifespan cut short as manufacturers lose interest in supporting them.

            3. Mikel

              Re: re: There are also many who aren't happy with the limitations of Windows

              >If you're not happy with the limitations of Windows don't buy a Windows tablet.

              It is not a Windows tablet. They are Acer / Asus / etc personal computers. How we choose to use them is up to us, including putting our own software on.

          2. SundogUK Silver badge

            Buy something else then.

            1. Anonymous Bullard

              "Buy something else then."

              Excellent advice, @SundogUK.

          3. JDX Gold badge

            @Anonymous Bullard

            Just because you're in the 1% I already mentioned doesn't mean everyone else is. The fact some people have the requirements you do is why I said 1%, not "nobody".

            Angry computer nerds are a very small slice of the market, especially the £200 market.

            1. Anonymous Bullard
              Facepalm

              Re: @Anonymous Bullard

              Angry computer nerds

              Yes, it does fuck me off when I buy physical things... only to find out I'm "not allowed" to use it how I'd like.

              And sub-200 is the ideal market for angry nerds, who buy things to test/break/tinker. We want cheap and hackable. Haven't you heard of the Raspberry Pi?

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Ownership isn't that simplistic. The price you pay for your machine hardware includes (historically) the price of the OS, or (now) the subsidy the OS vendor pays the hardware manufacturer to put their OS on the hardware so that you, the customer, will use their services and they can get revenue from that different stream. Any company paying a subsidy is of course going to want to protect their alternative revenue stream, and to my mind are entitled to do so within reasonable boundaries. If you don't like the way they protect that revenue, then don't buy the hardware they subsidize.

            1. Anonymous Bullard

              So you'd be happy buying a cheap car from tesco, only to find out that you can only fill up at tesco garages?

              If I buy something, I want to own it and use it as I wish - regardless of their business model.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "....or (now) the subsidy the OS vendor pays the hardware manufacturer to put their OS on the hardware..."

              totally agree!

              you'd think that this is something for everyone to cheer about, right? as in, you now get a discount for using something you previously had to pay for. and you *still* have the option of replacing it if you didn't want it, *without* losing that discount. but Noooo.. that's still not good enough for some people.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Hmm, when Google give out a free OS on cheap hardware, you all cried about it. And look at Kindles, ffs; at-cost hardware, but the e-books cost more than dead tree books!

                Enter Microsoft.. doing the same: "Wow, it's amazing! Sign me up!! Why didn't they think of this before?? Take my data up your arse!"

                I'm tired of this "forum". Never any discussions on technical merit, just fanboys, shills, and students.

                Call me old, because I'm not from the "google generation", but I'm quite happy paying for a full OS, even upgrades/maintenance - and get to keep/abuse/recycle my hardware. I remember when Windows was ok, until they started copying the bad parts of both apple and google - and for whatever reason, the MS fans actually love it.

                Well, you can shove your freemium, ad driven, in-app purchases up your well fucked arses.

                And who the fuck is that on my lawn?? Oh, my meds have arrived.

        2. h4rm0ny

          >>"Secure boot doesn't make them useless. It makes them useless to the 1% of people who want to buy them as cheap kit and rip a different OS on."

          Actually you've already fallen for the FUD. The "Secure Boot" attacks are one of the most dishonest attacks that has ever lasted so long. You can turn it off on any x86 device. In fact, Microsoft requirements actually mandate that you be able to. Here are the requirements: MS Hardware Certification Requirements.. Here is the most relevant sections:

          18. Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. :

          There are other paragraphs that make it further clear. This has been disproven over and over again. But some people prefer a delicious sounding attack to the truth. Secure Boot isn't even a Microsoft technology - it's part of UEFI - a consortium made up of all the major hardware manufacturers such as Samsung, HP, et al. MS has one seat on the board but to some that of course means they're the power behind Samsung and AMD and Intel. *roll eyes*

          It's a useful security feature that I look forward to GNU/Linux taking advantage of. And it's about as difficult to turn off as it is to change the boot disk. Only RT devices have it fixed, just the same as iPads and phones are locked down. None of these are RT devices.

          If you want a device that is actually locked down for no good reason, look at Google's Pixel. You can run ChromeOS or Ubuntu on it. Any attempt to install anything else you can only achieve by manually putting it into "Developer Mode" every time you turn it on.

          Now watch the downvotes come in, not because anything I've written is factually incorrect (it isn't), but because it takes away some hater's favourite toy to attack Microsoft with. What's worse is that I recognize some of the same posters repeating this everytime Windows 8 comes up despite proof they're wrong. Apparently if you hate something enough, it's okay to make up lies to persuade others to hate it to. Because you know, they're the bad guy.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Pipe down. We all know what the intention of requiring secured boot is. No, it's not to reduce the risk of root kits.

            The good side effect of it is there's a barrier to entry for Linux users. That means less idiots - which is a good thing!

            1. h4rm0ny
              Facepalm

              >>"Pipe down. We all know what the intention of requiring secured boot is. No, it's not to reduce the risk of root kits."

              So you say the purpose of Secure Boot is not to secure against malware, despite the fact that there is existing malware that it secures against. And you insist that the purpose is to lock people out despite the fact that it doesn't.

              Could you come up with anything more wrong-headed than this? Yes, apparently you can -

              >>The good side effect of it is there's a barrier to entry for Linux users. That means less idiots - which is a good thing!

              You would actually wish to discourage people from GNU/Linux to prop up your sense of elitism! That's disgusting. Fortunately for those less obnoxious, I can't imagine any would-be user being stopped. If your sense of elitism is calibrated so low that you think entering the BIOS makes you part of a superior group, there are some people around here who would blow your mind.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Root-kits are the "official" reason. MS (assuming they know about security) knew very well secure boot would be by-passed via malware. It's just an extra layer of false security - but anyway, I'm not that bothered about it... it hasn't affected me yet, since I still use Windows.

                You would actually wish to discourage people from GNU/Linux to prop up your sense of elitism!

                Why burden the limited support communities with people who are unable to make (or google) a simple "BIOS" change? That's my point, keyboard warrior.

                1. h4rm0ny

                  >>"MS (assuming they know about security) knew very well secure boot would be by-passed via malware. It's just an extra layer of false security - but anyway,"

                  Demonstrably false as there is real world malware that infects the boot process and that Secure Boot blocks. You can cover your ears all you want but it remains a fact.

                  >>"Why burden the limited support communities with people who are unable to make (or google) a simple "BIOS" change? That's my point, keyboard warrior."

                  Yay, insults. You're still supposing that there are people who want to try GNU/Linux but would be defeated by their inability to enter the BIOS (or UEFI). It didn't stop us in the days where you had to select a boot device and I don't believe it stops us now. But to answer your question, if someone did have trouble with that I would be very happy to help them. All of us start somewhere. Your snobbery should have no place in the Open Source community.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    I'm not interested in the alleged merits of secure boot. Feel free to love it. Yes, it's an extra layer and it stops most boot sector type viruses we got in the 90's, but if you keep an eye on IT security developments then you'll have noticed that there are several ways that secure boot can be defeated. Google it. But as I've said, I don't have an issue with secure boot, it hasn't affected me yet. I have it enabled, never needed to disable it. There's even instructions on MSDN on how to.

                    Your snobbery should have no place in the Open Source community.

                    Good job I use Windows, then.

                    But I know plenty of people who'd be defeated by the UEFI configuration. Those same people would also swamp the limited support options the Linux community. So yes, this "gate keeper" is actually a good thing, for the Linux support community

                    Further dumb down: "Are you able to perform a config change to your PC, or google how to?" if not, then Linux probably isn't for you.

                    1. h4rm0ny

                      >>"I'm not interested in the alleged merits of secure boot."

                      For someone "not interested" you've been posting a lot on the subject. So basically, you're "not interested" in what good it does. You only want to support your a priori position that it's bad.

                      >>"Yes, it's an extra layer and it stops most boot sector type viruses we got in the 90's"

                      Every post from you, the amount of information in the world decreases. In 2013, it was reported MBR attacks (master boot record) reached the highest ever. source. TDL version 4 infected 4.5 million PCs in 2011 and McAffee called it one of the most sophisticated attacks there was at the time. "got in the 90's" indeed.

                      So you're now admitting it provides extra security but refusing to backtrack on your claim that it's purpose isn't security. Silly.

                      >>"that there are several ways that secure boot can be defeated."

                      Very hard to do though. There are some UEFI implementations that are vulnerable if you get kernel mode priveleges. There's a userland exploit too, but it's not known what it is or which vendors are affected. They're presumably patching now. If you believe that because a security measure isn't 100% perfect by itself gives you reason to say it's purpose isn't security, then clearly nothing counts as security to you. Secure Boot makes an OS much more secure than the same OS without it.

                      >>"Good job I use Windows, then."

                      Don't really care what you say you use - it makes your arguments no less factually false either way. And your attitude of wanting people excluded from a community is reprehensible regardless of whether you're in it or not. Though the fact that you're now arguing that you would prefer the idiots to remain in "your" community suggests you maybe haven't planned this through and are just reacting to whatever I say with a counter-claim, no matter how inconsistent it is with your argument.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        i'm not affected or insulted by the secure boot, i'm just picking up on the mbr part.

                        how is untrusted code entering the mbr in the first place, in a modern OS?

                        also, do you have a more reputable source (with numbers) than mcafee? (who are obviously scare mongering)

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        For someone "not interested" you've been posting a lot on the subject.

                        No, I couldn't give a toss if they want to enforce secure boot or not. I'm just saying, if anything it's actually benefited the Linux support community.

                        It's a throw-away comment by an AC, and you've just made a tit of yourself trying to bicker with someone who partly agrees with you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > Don't you think all this secure boot FUD has gone far enough now?

        I thought it was FUD, until I wandered off the beaten track and found it difficult to install another OS.

        Just because the problem wont affect you, doesn't mean it's non-existent.

        1. h4rm0ny

          >>"I thought it was FUD, until I wandered off the beaten track and found it difficult to install another OS."

          Bullshit. You're saying this was too complicated for you?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            boo hoo

            poor ms fan boys don't like hearing fud about their beloved os.

            hahaha.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: boo hoo

              >>"poor ms fan boys don't like hearing fud about their beloved os."

              Some of us don't like FUD just on general principles. When you have to start making things up in order to justify hate or whip up a mob, it means you're wrong.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: boo hoo

                while the rest just have double standards.

                you always seem to chime in when anyone dares to state their dislike of enforced secure boot, i wonder why. people are allowed to dislike even the things that you love. don't take it so personally.

                1. h4rm0ny

                  Re: boo hoo

                  >>"you always seem to chime in when anyone dares to state their dislike of enforced secure boot, i wonder why."

                  Because they post factually incorrect information which is easily disproved and it isn't "enforced"?

                  >>"people are allowed to dislike even the things that you love. don't take it so personally"

                  People can dislike whatever they want. But I'd prefer they didn't post lies because they want other people to hate the same things they hate. I think that's reasonable, don't you?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: boo hoo

                    the self-appointed troll slayer.

                    get a proper job.

  2. Tom 35

    with Bing

    "It runs Windows 8.1 with Bing, which means Bing comes preconfigured as the default search engine in Internet Explorer but not much else"

    So how is that different than normal 8.1? It must be crippled in some other way as well.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Re: with Bing

      It must be crippled in some other way as well.

      Yes, it comes with Windows.

    2. Chairo

      Re: with Bing

      ... It must be crippled in some other way as well.

      As written in the article. The screen size is limited. That said, I wonder if there are other limitations, similar to the castrated XP they shipped with the netbooks. Those were limited to 1024x600 resolutions and 1GB memory. Also the Netbooks were all 32bit, though I am not sure if that particular limit was mainly imposed by Microsoft or by Intel.

      The netbook portable described in the article has 1024-by-600 resolution and ships with 1GB RAM. Happy swapping time! Don't damage your eyes!

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like