Linuxwatch Budget System of 2001

A reader writes "Linuxwatch.org has posted their Budget System of 2001 in response to LinuxHardware's 2001 System of the year. Boasting their system is 13% of the price and plenty of power for "normal users". Running at 1.4Ghz with 256MB RAM, it doesn't seem to bad for "normal users"(whatever that means)IMHO."

Comments

And they wonder why sales have dropped...

[fmaxwell]

The "average user" is someone who surfs the web, sends the occasional e-mail, and writes letters. And that user does not significantly benefit from a ghz-class machine. Put them on an "old" 700mhz machine from a couple of years ago, and they do just fine. More and more individuals and businesses are realizing that the computers that they already own work fine for what they do. People no longer drum their fingers waiting for programs to load, files to compress, and spreadsheets to recalculate.

Sure, there are a handful of people who really do need fast machines, but, as Apple has realized, you don't need to have ghz+ machines to satisfy the average user.

Re:And they wonder why sales have dropped...

[Afrosheen]

Looks like you've fallen into the 'measure performance by clock speed' trap that others following Intel-compatible architectures often do. Mhz/ghz is NOT a measure of speed when comparing risc-like chipsets from Motorola and IBM. Alot of g4's can outperform Intel chips that run at twice the mhz rating. AMD has just proven this when you compare the new AMD XP chipsets to Intel chipsets. The AMD's can smoke Intel chips that cost alot more and run at a higher clock speed. They have more instructions per clock cycle than the Intel chips do, among other things.

Don't be fooled by mhz ratings, pure and simple.

Re:And they wonder why sales have dropped...

[SirSlud]

Um. Since WHEN has apple been attempting to satisfy the average user? I think Apple has always stressed an almost religious-like devotion to developing the best (if not always most powerful) complete PC solution. (Disclaimer: I operate under the axiom that their hardware /costs/, often a point of contention, are due to Intel and MS's monopoly on the x86 platforms.) They have been responsible for so many innovations in the PC world, from the first mass marketed windows OS to having multi-head capable computers YEARS before you could do it on a PC on a single card. Look at the iPod. The only criticism I've heard levied against it (other than the tired, old price thing) is that it doesn't hook up to PCs (yet, but it will.)

Clearly, the avg user wants the cheapest thing that sits near the top of the mass-media performance chart. I also think the success of grey PCs is thanks, in part, to people's perception that they are not paying for the asthetics of the computer. It's a shame, because it's really inhibited the PC's sweaty desire to make it into the livingroom, nevermind turned people away from a GUI that usability experts tend to agree is extremely well organized and implemented.

But oh well. Everyone knows that consumers are idiots; we all operate at work under the assumption that best of breed solutions are riskier than the manipulative wool-over-the-eyes approach to selling, at least as far as new technologies go. And yes, I'm including myself here.

Re:And they wonder why sales have dropped...

[drix]

Precisely. In fact, I'd go ever further and say that, if you spend a lot of time compiling, you should always forego getting the fastest processor and the market and buy 2 of whatever costs half the price, and build yourself an SMP box. First, the performance gain with SMP is basically linear for compilation, assuming you're using a good value for make -j. Second, it's been my experience that a pair of 700Mhz PIIIs usually beats my 1.5Ghz P4 handily for kernel compiles and many other things. Granted it's kind of comparing apples to oranges but it's a starting point.

Re:And they wonder why sales have dropped...

[damiam]

Or even better, just do a make -s and use both processors for compiling.

I'm in budget territory

[stevens]

I'm glad they highlight the budget system. As a software developer, I find most of my desktop cycles are spare. Even builds I do on a server. Budget systems can do more now than supercomputers a few years ago.

What the computer industry really needs are some breakthroughs in software development to enhance stability and usability.

Hardware Prices vs Software

[EraseEraseMe]

It's interesting to see how prices for hardware continually drops while software prices (Non-free as in beer software) maintain or increase in price. The total system cost for machine listed in the article is $399..Now, let's add Windows...$99, an office suite $150, anti-virus software, $59...We've almost immediately doubled the price of the machine by merely adding functionality. This is quite possibly why people accept paying extragavant prices for software; it's a trade-off..lower prices for hardware, higher prices for software = maintain status quo of computer system pricing.

1.4 Ghz?

[ImaLamer]

I'm running 750 Mhz Slot A Athlon [classic] on a windoze box. This is a smoking machine even with the huge over head of XP. All the fluffy things don't seem to slow me down.

The difference seems to be the amount of ram. I've went from 128 to 384 and cut my boot time in half, so it seemed. When I dual-booted from this box, linux smoked and I've never seen a faster machine.

My linux box is simply a 333Mhz K6-2. Nothing seems to be slow there. I must admit that I don't run X, quake or etc... but it seems to be enough.

A budget system at 1.4Ghz seems to be a little much. But while we are on the subject, the amount of RAM seems to be low considering that RAM is so cheap.

I could be wrong, I can access the page.. or any page at Linuxwatch.

Mobo supports up to 1.2ghz?

[itsnotme]

One weird thing that I saw, I was looking up the mobo and some of the stats on the motherboard say that it supports up to 1.2ghz cpu's and yet they're trying to put a 1.4ghz cpu into it?

Re:So what does it mean...

[JanneM]

especailly geeks do not need the fastest system around. We do not necessarily need the latest games, we tend to use laTeX rather than Word, editor and compiler rather than an intgrated IDE and so on. I'm still doing half my work on a P133 HP Omnibook, just because it has the best laptop keyboard I've ever used...

/Janne

Of course...

[clontzman]

It's interesting to see how prices for hardware continually drops while software prices (Non-free as in beer software) maintain or increase in price.

This argument gets thrown around all the time, and it's never made much sense to me.

Obviously, the reason hardware prices have gone down is because the cost of building computer components goes down over time. On the other hand the cost of expert software programmers has tended to go up because you're paying for a salary rather than a physical component. You really can't compare physical processes to intellectual resources.

Re:Of course...

[Tattva]

the cost of expert software programmers has tended to go up because you're paying for a salary rather than a physical component

OTOH, the number of units sold has dramatically increased, and since RnD is mostly a fixed cost and the incremental cost is a CD and an oversized box, Windows has been getting more and more profitable over the past 12 years. I expect Microsoft will be forced to do one of two things as hardware gets cheaper: either lower prices for the general-purpose windows platform, or move home users to a more targeted consumer platform that will be so focused on household tasks (web, IM, games, letters, multimedia, etc) you would have a hard time describing it as an operating system.

Microsoft will simply not be able to convince hardware makers that over half their costs should be software, and you will see non-pc appliances really take off if Microsoft doesn't address this. Microsoft isn't stupid, so they will be forced to change. In the end the second scenario is probably best for customers anyway since home users don't need the complexity of a full operating system and the best solution is not to hide the complexity like Windows ME does, but to not have the complexity in the first place.