@Matthew: "... The article - and gripe - is that Windows isn't really necessary on a netbook ... We’re talking about a device that’s supposed to be used for core ‘Net access and other simple tasks. ... Netbooks are (or were) primarily low cost devices meant to be used on the run, mostly for email, basic web browsing etc. By introducing a commercial OS, you unnecessarily increase the cost of the device. ..."
I better understand the original point, but doubt the market for "netbooks" that are pared-down to the point where they are ONLY useful for the most basic of tasks is large enough for must of us to care about.
I don't see why Windows Starter Edition isn't cheap enough and appropriate enough for the type of netbooks that many people actually buy and use. Certainly, it's not cheaper than "free," but then it also adds the functionality, useablility, and familiarity that most people prefer to have.
The "netbook" definition has already changed to the point where you can't say "netbook" and have it automatically assumed to be a device pared-down to the point of being a one or two-trick pony. What USED to be little more than ridiculously oversized smart phones, but without the phone, are now full-fledged notebook computers, as evidenced by many griping about the "need" to have Aero, backgrounds, support for more memory, optical drive support, more than three apps running, et al.
Those people don't want a TRUE netbook, they want a tiny, cheap notebook, and most of them will be happier with Windows on it. (Gahh! I'm rambling -- More Caffeine!)