Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer's $100 PC, Sans Windows
Martin_Flory writes "SolarPC has announced the $100 personal computer. Steve Ballmer's idea for reducing piracy was great after all, since this computer runs on Linux (DSL Distro). 'The design and construction of the SolarLite is consistent with the goal of an environmentally friendly computer. It uses a lightweight, recyclable, aluminum case that has a 20-year warranty. Its VIA chipset based "long-life" motherboard is a "green" lead free product. Like all SolarPC computers, the SolarLite operates on 12 volt DC power and can be run from a solar panel, car battery, or human powered (with a bicycle-based generator). The cool and quiet SolarLite uses approximately 10 watts of energy, just a fraction of what a standard PC consumes.' Sounds amazing right? This could change education all around the globe... a new Information Era is coming, and everyone is invited." The site claims they'll be available next month (minimum order 100,000 units), and promises a demo at SCALE 2005.
No It's a really bad joke on Ballmer.
A few weeks ago Ballmer made the annoucement he wanted $100 PC's for the 3rd world countries. He of course wanted them to run windows.
the joke is that the reason you can't have a $100 pc running windows, is because you need to spend $50 on just Windows. Hardware guys are already running at 1-3% profit per machine, Unlike say MSFT windows and office which are running at somewhere around 400% profit per license sold.
What Ballmer fails to realize is that people will balance that equation out. Both sides should be no higher than 30% Guess who will suffer more?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The company that "makes" these is nothing more than a Navada sales company. There is nothing "revolutionary" about this product, it's a miniITX. BFD. This is not a computer company, and as usual, Slashdot got sucked into a free Slavertisment.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
My point was, if it's $100, minimum order 100,000, then obviously $100 is not going to be the retail price of this machine. Once it goes through distribution and goes to retail outlets, it'll probably double in price.
I also just see a box on their website's illustrations. I don't think $100 includes the cost of the monitor or the keyboard/mouse. So by the time you're done buying those "optional" items and can actually USE the computer, you're looking at maybe $400. Which is the cost of a low end Dell shitbox, which almost certainly has better specs. So I don't see that we've actually gained anything.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I've been buying Great Quality brand PCs from Fry's, and have been very happy with them. The retail price normally runs from $180 to $220, and it includes a hard drive and a power supply. Yesterday, as a day-after-Thanksgiving promo, they were selling them for $99. I almost went down there to get in line before dawn and snap one up, but my wife said lots of unreasonable things like, "You don't need another computer," and "What's wrong with the computer you have now?"
Find free books.
The village doesn't have to afford it. If a first-world charity or aid agency has $1000 to spend on computers (which is quite plausible), they can buy ten of these instead of two standard $500 desktops.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
"You could pay them to ride a bicycle instead. It really makes no difference. "
,etc. I can tell you that if I followed your philosophy I'd have an extremely busy life.
It makes a major difference. If a person is riding a bike to power my computer he is working for me and me alone. This is not a fair or even economic model because I would need huge teams of people on bikes to power my house. To keep a single person in luxury a large number of people would be needed. Because of this imbalance, only a small number of privileged people would have electricity even though a large number of people worked for that electricity.
Consider the local incinerator. They provide power for this entire region. The number of people who can power their entire homes far exceeds the number of people actually required to create that power. This is a far better model because large numbers of people get electricity including those who produced it.
Now, I suppose the next step in your little philosophy is to argue that I could be personally down there shoveling trash into the burner. And I certainly could. But where would I get my food? I don't have the time or stamina for a full time job at the power plant and a full time job on the farm. In addition I'd also need to start working at the Water Works, the oil company, and the waste water treatment plant, and at some point I'd need to learn carpentry so I could build a house.
In addition to those necessities, I'd probably want to get part-time jobs at the Phone Company, The Cable company, The Local Newspaper, the local Dr Pepper bottling plant, etc
I like our current system better than both the slave system where people hire large numbers of people for their own personal use, or your system where everyone does everything themselves. Namely, individual services are provided by a relatively small number of people and offered to a large number of people. This allows everyone to enjoy the benefit of services that they could not personally provide. With the introduction of currency we can keep the whole system at least roughly fair.
Now don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that our current Capitalist system is not perfect and it has many problems, but it is a major step up from rich people hiring large sets of slaves and everyone else being screwed.