Slashdot Mirror
Falling Hardware Prices Favor Linux
An anonymous reader sends us to a blog posting arguing that, as hardware prices fall below $250 for laptops and desktops, Linux should gain as the Microsoft tax stands out in sharper relief. "In previous years, if you were spending US$1500 and up on a laptop, the Microsoft tax you were paying didn't seem like such a big deal. XP or Vista was pre-installed, fairly convenient... But as the price of hardware for small basic machines comes down, (think under US$250 by the end of next year), then software price starts to become a big issue. Why would you pay the price of your new laptop again just for the software, when all you want to do is really basic things?"
Linux will never 'take off' until the Linux people stop answering almost every question with the equivalent of "Go in the kitchen and cook it yourself." Most people just want to at a tasty Linux sandwich, and they have no aspirations to be master chefs.
As far as I know, Ubuntu is the only distro that mostly understands this. Just a coincidence that it's the most popular desktop?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is one of thos cliche phrases that are, oh boy, so stupid, it's not funny anymore. i don't pay any MS tax! I GLADLY pay to use their products. Even if there are free ones. I like Windows (and am VERY PROUD of being a Windows user), I like programming for Windows, I love Visual studia and .NET. So I am a custommer not a tax payer. End of the story.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
"Because Windows is better" (tm)
I'm hear all night folks!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So let me get this straight, computers came preinstalled with Vista a few years ago?
If anything, Vista has made the prices of buying a new OEM computer rise, not to mention the fact that the cost of getting hardware "verified", and the new specs imposed by Vista on such hardware.
Becuase Microsoft will claim, based on current market penetration, that the end user will most likely install Windows anyway so the OEM's must include it in order to protect their customers from being charged with piracy. (And so the OEM's don't get trouble calls about computers with no OS/Windows OS from users. At $250 dollars the margin on the PC is almost non-existance and trouble calls cost money). If that's really true or will be true who know, but in the end most computers will be shipping with either Windows or Mac OS X for the forseable future.
ESR made the same claim in one or more articles several years ago.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
As someone seriously considering buying Asus's eeepc (awful name), I have to agree with the main point of this article with regard to costs. At these sorts of prices you're not going to get a machine, especially a laptop that'll play much by way of games, so immediately one of the biggest stumbling blocks for many computer users is gone. The compatibility of OpenOffice.org means that, with few exceptions, these systems will work fine with existing microsoft based home computers, web and email by Firefox and Thunderbird respectively again mean you aren't going to be left with a second class way of accessing the internet. (For business desktop users this may well be different, but most businesses who would have their own access servers etc, aren't going to be buying "cheep" hardware).
If presented in the right way, as a low cost, fully featured alternative on these lower power platforms, Linux could potentially make quite a bit of headway.
regards, the_leander
No, she isn't. You won't be able to buy a Linux laptop that doesn't have working drivers out of the box - vendors are going to ensure there are supported drivers before the released them, much like they do with Windows and vendors will just favour chipsets with supported Linux drivers, which is an upside for Linux-users too as a wider amount of hardware will support it as it makes financial sense to do so.
I kind of agree with the story - certainly the low-cost Acer EeePC is Linux-based primarily down to price, although speed comes into it too where a Linux distribution runs faster on low-spec desktops. It certainly can't do any harm, that's for sure.
MS isn't stupid. If linux begins to seriously cannibalizing their market, they will simply reduce Windows OS price to 50-100USD, with even bigger academic discounts. That would cut into their profits, but it'll keep people happy and maintain their OS dominance.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
... but for now a $400 computer with Windows sounds pretty good to most people, too. And the learning process (particularly if they choose XP over Vista, as they can for now) will be significantly less arduous for the average joe user with some previous Windows experience. Not that the friendlier Linux distros (Ubuntu and its ilk) are hard to use, but they're more intimidating than what people already know backwards and forwards.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This makes the assumption that Microsoft cannot drop the price of Windows. They have lots of side products and the cash to drive a price war for a long time. I think Microsoft charges oems maybe $30 for installing windows. That may sound like a lot but then then people spend $5 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks
Add this to the list of things which should make Linux gain marketshare. Off the top of my head, the list includes: Microsoft's problems with XP/Vista, Apple's problems with 10.4/10.5, Apple's switch to Intel, the latest Windows virus, the introduction of the iPhone, the introduction of the iTMS, the fact that Balmer is a sweaty ape, and on and on.
The reason that Linux is, and will remain a niche player in the OS desktop market have almost next to nothing to do with technology. I think many posters here have at least a minimum familiarity with Linux, at least enough to know that a well-maintained Linux system can easily do all of the things more normal computer buyers need. It can check email, surf the web, handle digital pictures, play music, load music onto iPods, balance checkbook and find porn. The problem for Linux is that Windows and OS X can do all these things as well. Given this, there's no reason for an average consumer to switch.
What about hardware lock in? What about free, as in speech and beer?
No one cares.
I will repeat that: the average consumer doesn't care about either one. Most consumers already hold themselves in a sort of vendor lock in. If they've had a good experience buying from Dell, odds are they will continue to buy from Dell. If they've had good luck with Macs their entire computing lives, odds are they will stay there. And it's not just with computers. We all know people who will only by Hondas, or Fords, or Black & Decker or Bose. This isn't a technology issue, it's a marketing and consumer loyalty issue, and no amount of fancy kernel engineering will change that. It's the same for free speech and beer: your average consumer doesn't see the cost of the OS, because s/he buys one with the computer. My brother ran the OS his Powerbook came with (10.2.8) for years. He only accidently upgraded to 10.4 because he brought his machine to me to fix an unrelated problem, and I said something like, "Holy shit, you're still running 10.2.8." It was all the same to him, and I'm not sure he noticed the difference between 10.2 and 10.4. I'm sure he will be running whatever version of 10.4 his MacBook Pro came with until the next time he sees me.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
If my mother were to walk into best buy and buy a Pavilion dv9000 with Ubuntu preinstalled, she's going to have to go through what would have to be hell for her and back to get it running: boot options like "nokvm noapic noacpi", blacklisting bcm43xx, installing ndiswrapper over a wired connection, manually installing flash for their 64-bit system.
What are you talking about? You would of course buy Ubuntu preinstalled precisely because you would have to do none of these thing. The OEM has installed and configured Ubuntu with the hardware working. (If not you would rightfully complain just as you would about a broken Windows installation.)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
...at least then you could do something with it (ie make phone calls).
A $250 laptop might have about as much capability as a blackberry or half-decent cellphone (but lacking the ability to phone anyone) so why the fuck would anyone who has REAL-WORLD computing needs buy one?!
A barely useful laptop (insofar as actually trying to use it like a laptop) costs ~$750 plus tax and warrantee including ~$150 or so for OEM XP Pro, or (theoretically) ~$600+ without an OS. I gotta tell ya, for 25% of the base cost of the machine, having an Operating System that's actually useful and doesn't ever require me to recompile ANYTHING (or, more importantly, doesn't require my users to do so) is money WELL SPENT.
-AC
Tell me how Mac Books have become the fastest growing segment of the laptop market if people are so concerned about price? For that matter how does Apple sell anything? The iPod is overpriced compared to other MP3 players yet it's #1, the iPhone is so overpriced they had to cut the price mere days after selling a million of the things. Yet people love their products. If you make Linux feel and act like OSX and come up with sexy commercials then maybe people will use it. But then they won't care what the price is either.
I was just having a conversation with a buddy of mine about this subject this afternoon. Rather than desktop/laptop prices though, our talk centered around servers. I was pricing Dell blade servers today. Do you know you can get a blade chassis with 10 blades 'loaded to the gills' for around $60K? Now granted, that may not be small potatoes, but for the horsepower involved (each blade has dual 3GHz Quad cores with 16GB RAM and dual 146GB drives) it's peanuts. My use revolves around one use and one use only...Xen on CentOS. That $60k is a lot of jack to the average /.er, but compared to what I would have had to (and did) settle for a couple of years ago, it's practically free. Man, what a great time to be in this industry. The more commoditized (yeah, I realize that probably isn't even a slang term) hardware becomes, the better for me/us/anyone using FOSS solutions. Love it! Love it! Love it!!!
And this has what to do with Propaghandi's frist psot?
First of all, why would whe have to go through all those things if Ubuntu was preinstalled, and why would a laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled use hardware that required the use of ndiswrapper and running with those boot options? And why would she use a 64-bit Ubuntu install any more than she would use a 64-bit windows install, where flash also isn't available for 64-bit browsers?
As hardware prices fall below OS cost, it will be possible for Microsoft to 'bundle' the hardware with the OS. Perhaps the next Windows family will be 'Windows Laptop', 'Windows Home Computer', 'Windows Server', each coming with the hardware pre-installed. The current situation only appears to be something of a conundrum because we are accustomed to thinking that the hardware should be the most expensive part.
Loose lips lose spit.
OEM's don't have a lot of incentive for selling $250 computers, as the profit margins are very tight in such a low price ranges (even without MS tax). It's not like 06's $700 desktop can't be built today for $250, or '05's $700 destop couldn't be build for $250 in '06, and so on. As hardware prices fall, OEMs simply up the specs of their base systems so that they maintain their profit sweet spot.
The article really has it wrong. Falling HW prices make paying the "MS tax" more palatable. Someone who was set to pay $1200 for a system with Vista Home, is now looking at paying $800, or will pay $1100 with Ultimate and more kick ass hardware that works with the OS rather than buying a kick ass cheap machine that may not work with the free, cheap OS.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Posts like this make me wish there was a -1, Massively Wrong mod.
I guess the real price is buried in Microsoft's contract with retailers, but I'm thinking $250 is at least an order of magnitude too high of an estimate on what Dell et al pay for an OEM copy of Windows.
Heck, they've had PDAs and cell phones in that price range forever running Windows CE, right?
I've been saying this for years. Microsoft helps the hardware manufacturers by ensuring that three year old hardware is outdated and new software won't run on it. But that strategy backfires when it promotes the development new hardware that is cheaper to produce, and therefore cheaper to sell. The price of the software (OS, office suite, image editing software) becomes a larger and larger percentage of the total cost of the system (hardware, software, ISP, etc).
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
ORLY?
Linux wins the desktop!
You'll never have consumer support for Linux, because there will always be some multimedia content supporting some form of DRM, and Windows allows for that, and Linux doesn't. When consumers have to go through hoops to download a song or play a movie on an OS, they won't choose it.
This is my sig.
"But as the price of hardware for small basic machines comes down, (think under US$250 by the end of next year), then software price starts to become a big issue. Why would you pay the price of your new laptop again just for the software, when all you want to do is really basic things?" If history repeats, it is more likely we will see Windows laptops at that price than one that comes with Linux preinstalled. There is considerable demand already for Linux laptops even at today's prices and yet there is no major vendor that sells one at a price lower or same as that of a Windows laptop. For several years, it has been cheaper to buy windows laptops and install Linux on them, than to buy a Linux-native laptop, eventhough prices have come down more than 50-60%.
I certainly do not see Linux as a cheap knock off, but OSS in general is free, so it is kind of hard to push it as anything else other than cheap. Cost in OSS has no relation on quality, however, which actually is OSS's biggest business problem... Love it or hate it, but people associate low cost with cheap quality. That is just the way it is...
:-)
From my perspective, I hope we stop calling always calling it Linux, and rather just focus on the distro, such as "Ubuntu" or maybe "Dell OS"... The beauty of Linux is that it excels when it is in the background designed for specific tasks, such as in Tivo's, or even embedded devices.... For example, do we call Apple's OS "OSX NextStep/BSD"???
i'm still baffled as to how a dell computer with linux costs more than one with windows
This is one of thos cliche phrases that are, oh boy, so stupid, it's not funny anymore. i don't pay any city tax! I GLADLY pay to use their services. Road repair, fire and police are all great things that I appreciate, so it's obvious that this is not really a tax. Even if it's mandatory for people who don't use those services. Oh, wait...
I've got no problems with your use and enjoyment of MS software (I used to know a lot of perfectly reasonable people who agreed with you, although that number definitely seems to be shrinking), but why the hell am I forced to subsidize it? The fact is that "MS tax" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe the mandatory, non-negotiable bundling that's usually offered even if you do want the bundle.
Why would you pay the price of your new laptop again just for the software, when all you want to do is really basic things?"
I buy a new laptop for a better laptop... not the OS that comes with it.
More faster everything in a smaller package on a bigger screen with the latest tech like WAN modems, all flavors of wifi, and a new crisp keyboard.
Com'on... you know you all love that new keyboard feel and new hardware smell, it's geek-crack.
Unless Linux vendors produce what people want, there will not be that much anticipated uptake at all.
If one has to download and configure not less that 4 pieces of software just to get a basic mail-server functional, using the command line and editing text files which can be prone to errors...
If one has to put up with slow loading software (read OpenOffice.org) running on ugly interfaces that sometimes look incomplete (read KDE and GNOME), then we in the Linux world will wait a long time to get noticed especially on the desktop.
But it's getting better on the server front. The Apache web server for example does not require that many add ons [if any], to get it fully functional, and the upcoming release of KDE looks very promising.
On the GNOME front, I am not impressed by its inability to do basic file operations in the file dialog.
Those that argue that this functionality should be restricted to the file manager have never explained why one can still create a directory/folder within this same file dialog. With their argument, it should be removed. Period.
How do the other platforms do it? It's not as if Apple or Microsoft don't face the same restrictions when it comes to patents and DRM. There may be a real solution around it, but at this point in time if you clone OSX/Windows' solution you're at least *as good as* the competition.
First off, someone needs to pay for the damned mp3 patent, stupid as it may be, because an OS that can't play MP3's out of the box is not much of an end-user OS at all.
By all means, if you like Microsoft products, call yourself a consumer and keep using Visual Studio to develop .Net applications. And please, enjoy your vicarious pride in Microsoft's products. I never understand people who claim pride in someone else's work. Its like sports fans claiming that 'we' beat you, even when they did nothing more physical than spill beer when shouting at a television broadcast. I feel the same way about Linux fans that take pride in the kernel developers or even chicken hawks that take pride in the performance of the US military - I both cases I feel admiration and gratitude, but certainly not pride.
The article stated the simple fact that as hardware prices drop, that software prices become quite comparable to hardware costs. If open source can provide 'good enough' software and costs almost nothing (in comparison with hardware costs), then there is a market opportunity. This is almost exactly the argument that was used in the mid 90's to support Windows over Unix. Sure, the Unix was 'better' and there was more advanced software, but Windows was good enough and it's cost only added about 10-25% to the cost of a PC. Unix licensing was often more expensive than the hardware it ran on. As I recall, this price advantage was quite convincing to many CTOs, CFOs and CEOs.
So perhaps we are at the same sort of tipping point that lead to the growth of Windows over Unix, only now it would be the growth of Open Source over Microsoft. Now we see that Windows + Office often costs more than a budget PC. But you can install Ubuntu + OpenOffice.org for free. As long as Sun, IBM and others can gain from breaking the Windows Monopoly, they can easily afford to staff a few open source projects. The PC revolution took place in homes and in departments that had not been computerized. Scientists and engineers that had been using Unix often kept using Unix as other around them began using PCs. Similarly. countries that are currently using Windows extensively are not likely to rapidly switch to Linux-based solutions. However, there are lots of demographics in this world that do not have PCs. These are the demographics that are discussed in the article.
PS. Based upon the huge progress demonstrated at scan.coverity.com, I would not claim that open source is merely 'good enough'. But it seems quite clear that it is at least good enough for the sort of use discussed in the article.
Think global, act loco
I firkin hate it when people do this, riding the top post even if it's trolling rubbish just to get their post seen.
It's a shame there's no mod option: '-1 Comment System Abuse'. Suppose '-1 Overrated' fits quite well in its absence.
matter that much either.
The fact is-- many businesses going the open source route save money, but many pay more. Those that pay more understand that the money they save on software license fees can go towards making their entire operations more efficient, and they usually will send significantly more on consulting labor in this regard than they saved on software license costs.
Open source software is not the low-cost cheap solution. It is actually the high-end, more expensive solution which provides a great deal more power and flexibility than the truly cheap alternatives.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This article does not mention anything about the amount of resources required to run Windows Vista, which will eventually be the only game in town in the windows world... Vista could not run on any of these low cost devices just looking at their spec sheets... Also, the large number of users who are willing to pay >= $2K for laptops will go the Apple route, which cuts off their profitable "ultimate" side of things... So yes, in the longterm, it looks like M$ is going to be a little pinched in the marketplace..
Some think that the market is right for this to happen again now that MS is the overpriced, bloated, arrogant OEM. It is going to be more difficult. For one thing, hardware manufacturers sell computer with MS Windows for not much more than one can build a machine. Second, the most likely reason MS Windows costs hundreds of dollars retail is too keep the large hardware manufacturers happy, so that people will buy machines rather than upgrade the OS. This is one of the many apparent quid pro quos between MS and the computer makers to support MS. Since naked PCs are taboo, MS wins.
Third, it is my hypothesis that MS Windows is made solely to support after sales income opportunities for MS and the partners. I seriously doubt that the computer sales generate any money for the like of HP and Dell, and that kickbacks from MS and other software manufacturers are the real profit centers. Such income opportunities are not so possible with linux machines, so these machines must be sold at market prices.
For throw away machines, then, such as are used in the office, MS is going to be a good value as long as Dell and HP are in the MS pocket. The same holds true for single computer homes. Linux is winning where it is a value, i.e. where many machines are running in one place, and there is value in uptime. The cheapest machins is not going to be linux simply becuase the cheapest machine is going to supported through ads, which is not Linux.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Let me understand. If my hardware is expensive, I don't mind spending a lot for the OS. If the hardware is cheap, it bothers me that the OS is still the same price as before to the point that I will forgo the OS and spent a lot of time learning a new OS. Sumpin wrong there.
First, I've worked in the IT world _A LONG_ time. I can tell you that Microsoft has always bothered most people for various reasons. The people who have a good understanding of legal issues know that Bill Gates and Company are crooks who flagrantly break the law. IT people understand that Microsoft in the past has produced a crappy product for a high price. They now see that Microsoft produces a decent product but charges a very high price (everything and the kitchen sink is licensed out the wazoo and IT budgets reflect that). Basic users hate Microsoft because they cannot understand how to use Windows and feel betrayed due to the virus/spyware problem. About the only people who like Microsoft are wealthier people who consider themselves "power users" and really use the OS and all the gadgets they can get their hands on.
Now despite this massive discontent, Microsoft continues to be used by all because it is easy. Windows is kinda like frozen food. It costs more than preparing it yourself, but you don't need a pantry full of spices and seasonings, requires no prep time, and in many cases tastes just as good (read Marie Callendar) as meals from scratch, and is certainly more reliably good than home prepared meals. I can't tell you how many meals I've botched.
So, and I've said this many times, Linux/BSD will only become a popular desktop when governments decide to enact/enforce monopoly laws and force Microsoft to fully publish APIs so _ALL_ software no matter the programming language is fully platform independent.
Who tagged this article "Math"?!?? Give me your damn geek card RIGHT NOW because this article has nothing to do with math. I'm not fucking majoring in fucking mathematics to figure out what fucking percentage of a fucking computer's price goes to fucking Microsoft. Arithmetic, sure. But MATH? Of all the places I'd think would appreciate mathematics... Slashdot! You have forsaken me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
Do you realise that nobody does really need patent-encumbered technologies like mp3? Now we're going to replace one tax with another...
What royalties? The only patents remaining for the MP3 format are so broad they pertain to Ogg Vorbis as well.
This may be slightly off-topic, but it may be time to debunk that fallacy about
.docx documents around. These simple people with simple computer needs expect to be able to open them and edit them. So they may very soon really need Office 2007
"when all you want to do is really basic things?"
I hear that all the time from normal users. They just want a simple and cheap computer because all they want to do with it are only very simple things. In fact, what they have in mind with these very basic needs is the following:
- web surfing
- email
- Word documents
- and probably sync their address book with their phone
- manage their photos
- listen to music
- watch DVDs
Web surfing requires:
- A recent browser
- Acrobat PDF plugin
- Flash plugin (+ Shockwave if they have kids)
- Quicktime (or Quicktime Alternative)
- Real (or Real Alt.)
Word documents requires Office. One would think that could be OpenOffice, but people start sending Office 2007
For syncing with their phone, they probably need Outlook anyway
In the end, they need a recent and fast machine, and probably really want Windows and the latest Office on it.
Depressing...
You can already watch youtube with Gnash. Now it just needs to stabilize and be installed by default, making flash a non-issue (at least for what youtube is concerned).
I disagree. IBM gave away OS/2 in its machines to no avail, and mostly free Linux hasn't had any impact on the desktop. OS/X, however, which costs at least as much as Vista (as a hardware bundle) has made a small impact. Also, the real (inflation adjusted) price of OEM MS OSes has generally fallen, especially on a per-line of code basis.
The reason people pay for Windows, IMO, is the perceived need for Windows to run many desired programs. While Widows is an OK program (I like Vista fine), it has failed where it was forced to stand alone. For example, in web servers, the Apache / Linux combo was the most popular the last time I heard. Embedded Windows is less popular than Linux because there is no reason to pay more than $0 for an OS with no ties to the customer experience. Oracle, SAP, and IBM are offering Linux server based products because there is no need for more expensive OSes in the back room.
MS earns a super normal profit margin on its products because they are believed to be required to perform essential tasks. It's not the falling hardware prices that threaten MS, but rather the challenges at its Office and IE products that threaten Windows. Without tie-ins to unique products, Windows would fall in price to its economic value ($5?). Unless MS does something brilliant, it is in danger of having the competitive world side step its defense of Windows. MS won't be beaten by its voiceful detractors on this board, it will just become irrelevant.
Yes, little shops have always had machines with no windows, or (ahem) "OEM Windows" preinstalled but strangely lacking the shiny silver sticker on the case.
But... some people want a two year garantee, etc.
And I'm pretty sure he asked for a laptop... not a tower.
No sig today...
ESR has a proposed solution to this in one of his essays: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
Basically, the solution is to build in an (optional) method to the mainstream Linux distributions so that users can purchase and install legitimate codecs, or get them with the distribution pre-installed. The parent company of Lindows purchased the rights to the codecs' IP already, so it's really a matter of taking them and working the licenses into Ubuntu or a similar, more popular distro.
Yes, this would make the resulting distro non-free, in the same way that pre-installing a proprietary video driver would, and it would mean that there would be a charge to the user for each machine that they got with Linux on it. However, it would still be far cheaper than Windows (remember: Windows has to pay for the same IP licenses, it's just built into the cost of the entire OS; with Linux, that would be your only cost), and as a result you'd get a machine that could deal with modern multimedia and video out of the box, or with at most a one-click install. None of the current hunting around on forums for instructions that come with a lot of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, informational-purposes-only" disclaimers.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Walmart.com tried every flavor of OEM Linux and at price points as low as $200. The poor weren't buying PCs at any price and the middle class wouldn't touch the bottom feeders.
Mid-line you would have been lucky to have saved $50 on an OEM Linux box - the price of a single Windows PC game, two ink jet cartridges or a month of broadband cable.
No struggling with WINE or Caldega.
No retiring the Windows software library you have been building since 1992. Is there an iTunes for Windows? Will I need a new printer?
No one but a Geek wants to even think about this stuff.
In fall of 2007, Walmart.com is all Windows and mostly Vista. The Vista Basic laptop starts at $420. The Dual-Core Vista Premium laptop at $800.
If entry level is $250 think of what you buy at $500 - at $1000!
The PC is middle-class.
The middle class is most comfortable with the service life and pricing of "major home appliances."
They buy the Windows PC - the PC system bundle - the best they can afford - use it for five to ten years - and never give a second's thought to the so-called "Microsoft Tax."
Yes the hardware will be cheaper and the software will be cheaper, just like it is today on the Mac and iPod and iPhone.
If I gave you a blank PC and asked you to make it as much like a MacBook as possible you could spend the $1100 cost of the MacBook just on software for the PC. For example, to replace the six iLife applications with Adobe products is $149 per application, $894 and no OS yet, and you will need two of those to replace Mac OS X: both Windows and Unix and you'll have to dual boot and you still won't have modern typography, color management, audio processing, and much more.
An empty PC for $250 is just not that great of a deal. Doesn't do anything at all until you add either a lot of expensive software or a lot of expensive I-T hours. A $250 PC with the exact same features as an iPod touch would do well, but no such thing exists. Nobody is even close to that.
Someone please tell me what makes Windows worth the say 299 list price for the non-upgrade edition?
.NET and 'Managed Code'. With it's 100+ Mb set of required components to run a simple 'Hello World' App, putting it's bloat in close contention with Java.
Is it the screensavers?
Is it wordpad?
Is it the media player?
Is is it the [free] browser?
Last time I took computer engineering classes (a long long time ago), the function of an Operating System was to provide an Application Programmer Interface , Manage memory, Manage resources, and little else. Sure windows does all those things, but does most of them poorly. There is no 'API' anymore, ditched in favor of
Windows should sell for $100.00 TOPS. Since it includes just the BASICS to get a computer functioning. Word and it's ilk can sell for slightly more. An OS should focus on doing ONE THING, and doing it WELL, not 100s of things, and doing them all POORLY.
That's right, I did make this claim.
And I know why the effect didn't bite. It's because the big OEMs get their cost of Windows installation offset by the fees that crapware manufacturers play to get their demo versions and adware and spyware bundled into the distro. For an outfit like Dell, those fees are probably large enough to make installing Windows a net profit generator.
This would also explain why Linux configurations generally cost more that Windows configurations with identical hardware. It's not conspiracy, they're just trying to maintain margin in the absence of the crapware fees.
>>esr>>
The whole "people don't care about what technology they are using" argument fails the moment users realize they can get free stuff. For example the mainstream adoption of bittorent to download movies. All of a sudden everyone knows how it works and where to look for torrents etc.
And when Linux means that their laptop costs 1/2 as much, all of a sudden everyone will be recommending packages out of Ubuntu.
The one flaw with this whole thing is that it is absurd to think that Microsoft would blindly price themselves out of the market. Microsoft will sell XP for the next 10 years at $15 a pop if that is what they have to do to stay dominant. They charge $100/machine only because the market will bear it.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
"So what's up, Joe?"
"Man, I'm bummed. I got this pretty hot new laptop for three hundred bucks but it didn't come with Windows, and I don't have a copy of it anywhere."
"Oh? Hmm, I've got the disc right here in my drawer. Hold on, I'll burn you a copy." *takes out a CD with 'Windows XP' and a serial number scribbled on it in marker*
egypt urnash minimal art.
This is written on Windows XP.
I'm currently writing on this machine because I've brought a new mobile phone, and there is no suite for Linux. I haven't even been looking. Even in windows it was torture to set up connection with PC. But on the other hand, lately, when I need to do something in Windoze, it is torture. I hate it (who's yelling karma bitch? oh no- i'm Anonymous Coward), because most of things is much easier to do it in Linux, mostly in shell. On the other hand, I started using Linux not because it was easy, but because it was supposed to be hard. I took Mandrake, and hated it. It was Windows, mentally distorted. I love gentoo, not because it is friendly, but because I can do what I want to do. On the other hand, I'm programmer, and my tastes are probably different from casual consumer. Why are we making THEIR operating system? I'm happy with Fluxbox. Why should I make copy of some bloated environment?
Someone said something about Microsoft tax, but what is tax in normal country then fee to ensure freedom, and we all know the speech 'free as in freedom, not in free beer'. Go away RedHeadCovering, because I want beer. Cold, if possible:)
So if by having hardware prices fall, it's easier for Joe Consumer to purchase a larger system, and with the requirements of Windows (read: Vista) being greater than that of linux or XP, I would think that it's now easier for Joe Consumer to get into a Vista system. Yeah the cost of Windows is still higher, but the total cost of a new machine is still lower.
Bottom line: lower hardware costs benefit those platforms which are normally out of reach. Linux has always been "affordable", if people are buying linux at $200, they won't buy it at $100...
I purchased two cheap Acer Turion X2 laptops for my family. I made a mistake, I should have bought more expensive machines, the savings were not worth the trouble. For reasonable performance I installed bigger drives and more memory. Upgrading memory was a nightmare, I tried 6 different brands and they all froze the laptops. It took me three months to find the right brand. In addition the cheap models have plastic parts of poor quality, which break very easily.
Eric Raymond predicted several years ago that eventually falling hardware prices would have this effect.
A couple of years ago when I saw him at a conference I asked him if that was still his prediction and he replied that he was no longer so sure, because he thought that it was possible that Microsoft would simply cut the price of the Windows OS (to close to zero) to cancel out this effect.
That hasn't happened, but I think it's more than possible that it might.
Can we PLEASE stop trying to sell Linux as the cheap knock-off?
that's the only way it's ever going to get anywhere.
With keyboard, mouse, DVD +/- R/W, display, 80 G HD, 512 M RAM, ethernet, audio, modem, slow VIA processor. This appears not to be well made, but price point and features are instructive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
From what I have seen, the Vista tax for computers from large vendors is $50 for Vista Home Basic, probably not that much more for Home Premium. Most people (even if that doesn't include me) would rather stick with a vendor like Dell or HP and pay the extra $50 -- and if they already have a copy of Vista, they probably won't wipe their disk and install Linux.
Because unlike Windows, GNU/Linux isn't tied to a specific binary interface. All its free drivers and applications work on amd64 automaticaly or with minimal effort (who wants to run 64-bit Windows if all your programs are 32-bit?).
*I* predict that by 2020, cement will be free! That cold fusion will destroy every energy company in existance, and that everyone will be using iPhones.
Or, we can toss these stupidly speculative articles and actually cover something that's happened, or currently happening? I thought this was *news* for nerds.
Oh, and by the way, you'll never see a laptop or a desktop for $250, because at that price point there's no point in selling them at all unless your shop is selling thousands of them a month. The same thing has happened to PDAs. You can now only get a Palm Tungsten E in a bundle with a wireless keyboard because the technology has been on the shelf so long that it's not worth $300 by itself anymore. In 6 months, you won't be able to get them at all, replaced with something else at that price point.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Since a $500 dual core laptop (pretty sweet deal) comes with Vista home pro, it feels like Vista is free.
It might be different, if you saw the price tag for $350 for the same laptop without Vista - but until then you think that you got a decent laptop and it comes with free Vista.
In most cases, publishers of proprietary video provide such video to the end user in a format subject to codec patents and digital restrictions management. How can any OEM finance the emigration of customers from countries where patents and/or circumvention laws prohibit the use of such video with free software?
Though many Linux, /.ers may not like it Linspire has already opened that gate. Linspire has licensed proprietary codecs for Linspire Linux. If not already installed these codecs can be installed in Linspire using Click N Run, CNR. For other Linux distros Linspire is porting CNR. These are the distros CNR will support:
This is what CNR says about codecs and proprietary drivers:
"Will proprietary codecs and drivers be available at CNR.com?"
"Yes. Using CNR.com, you will now be able to safely and legally add support to your Linux desktop for things such as mp3, Windows Media, Quick Time, Java, Flash, ATI drivers, nVidia drivers, and so on."
Actually instead of working on a Linux distro perhaps Linspire should work on making codecs, drivers, and software available for Linux.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But but but... Chairman Bill himself once said that Windows costs less than a bar of "candy" a day over its projected lifetime (3 years). A shill also said that Linux is only free if your time has no value.
The Microsoft apologists say that Linux is too difficult and that it'll never be ready for the desktop. There is also no such thing as Apple. Command lines are bad.
Stick Men
I'm still recovering from doing that yesterday. The time from powering it on till I could get a start button.. 40 minutes.
I recently switched from Windows to OS X, several weeks ago I got a new Macbook Pro. From opening the box to having a user account desktop shown it took less than 15 minutes. And part of that tyme was setting up the user accounts, besides the admin account I setup 2 user accounts. Though I've used Windows almost exclusively the last 10 years, I get more out of the MBP than I ever did with a Windows PC, even with constantly mistakenly trying to use Windows shortcuts and hotkeys.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A substantial part of a printer purchase is the ink that comes with the new printer. It is possible that one could pitch a printer that has exhaused its ink and buy a new printer for not much more than the ink.
Remember upgrading from Win 95 to 98? Or 98 to XP? Most did not go out and buy a new machine, just the upgrade disk or a full version. I see the future where I would to a Walmart and buy a machine for the next upgrade from Vista for just for the Windows.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I have been using Linux almost exclusively since 1994. I've come to find Ubuntu to be a completely wonderful experience and a great product. I've never had the sort of issues you are speaking of.
Now, I'm not denying you had these issues. In fact, you seem like a perfectly honest person who had a bad experience.
My question is this: When did this occur? Which version of Ubuntu?
The reason I ask, is that over the last 4 versions (about 2 years) Ubuntu (and Linux in general) has went from what I would consider an OS only recommendable for true experts, to extremely friendly "Grandmother Ready".
I think if your experience was more than 1 year ago, you should consider giving it another look, you might be pleasantly surprised.
If you have any questions about it, and would like one on one support, please feel free to consult my website.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
[2] When I explained what was wrong and what I had tried, the first, and several other posters completely ignored that and suggested things I had tried several times over.
I've had the same thing happen to me in getting tech support for a Windows PC. I'd have a problem with something and do what I could to diagnose the problem then when I couldn't I'm call the OEM's tech support. The tech would ask me to do X and I'd say I did and this is what happened, the message Windows gave me if it gave me one. I'd be told to do it over so I would and I'd get the same results. Ok, go to step 2, and the same result. This would go on.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It would be nice if Linux got a bigger share of the market, especially considering that Vista is, for the most part, a piece of crap.
Not so fast! When hardware prices are high, it makes sense to use GNU/Linux or BSD on barebones legacy hardware. Falling hardware prices means that it is cheaper to feed Vista's gluttonous hardware requirements.
-- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
There's a pair of much bigger bad assumptions at play here: (a) the idea that software ought to be the cheaper thing than hardware, and (b) the idea that because some things are labeled as "basic" they ought to be cheap.
Over the past 30 years, hardware has consistently gotten faster and cheaper. The cost of developing and bringing to the market complex software solutions, on the other hand, hasn't really gotten much cheaper. If we reach a point where software becomes more expensive than the hardware it runs on, then that just means that the human costs of making computers do useful stuff have become larger than the costs of making computers. Depending on how you reckon it, if it's not already happened (what's the comparative cost of writing embedded software vs. the hardware it runs on?), it will happen in our lifetimes.
Are you adequate?
First, I don't know of *any* circumstance were people are genuinely happy with their computer systems. The clueless users you refer to are *terrified* of them usually, at least in my experience. They key to Linux's past and continuing success is that it *can* do what people want better than any alternative.
Now, there is still a ways to go in providing the sort of consumer experience people want, but I am sure that this issue will eventually go away as well. At the same time, a lot of consumers do find Linux to be the best option.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If this happens, Microsoft will probably come out with cheaper editions of Windows that limit your capabilities in additional ways. Then you'll end up with $250 PCs with a $30 Windows "Starter Edition" or something. A lower Microsoft tax, but also a far less useful system. Linux might still stand to gain due to the dramatically increased functionality relative to Windows that this will give it.
"An anonymous reader sends us to a blog posting arguing that...
Stopped reading at that point.
Oh wow, a blog extolling the virtues of Linux!!
This is "stuff that matters"? Random blogs by nobodies? *yawn*
It doesn't change anything who bundles what. Only the fact that the product is a bundle matters. If MS ships a "Windows Computer" for $400 whose hardware costs $200, there will be a competitor next door who sells a "GNU/Linux Computer" for $200. The essence is that they can't compete with that. They can rise or lower the price as they see fit, just like they do today, but as long as the cheaper alternative has an entry point they're doomed to fail. The big question is whether that entry point will stand long enough to leverage their dominance based on propietary "standards".
If my mother were to walk into best buy and buy a Pavilion dv9000 with Ubuntu preinstalled, she's going to have to go through what would have to be hell for her and back to get it running: boot options like "nokvm noapic noacpi", blacklisting bcm43xx, installing ndiswrapper over a wired connection, manually installing flash for their 64-bit system.. These are not things that your average non-geek is capable of doing. Until they don't need to do those things to go on facebook, download music and watch movies on youtube, Linux on the laptop is simply not going to happen.
I walked into a store and bought a PC with Linux preinstalled. When I got home I was able to plug it in and use it just as you describe. I didn't have to fiddle with and settings, boot options, or install additional software. Heck it was several months before I did install more software. Heck, I plugged an Ethernet cable in from my router into the net card on the PC and immediately was able to surf the net. On the other hand when I plugged the router into my Windows PC I had to go through and setup the settings for the PC to use the router.
FalconShould there be a Law?
MS will do fine for a while by lowering the price dramatically, clearly not everyone is going to pay $200 for each copy for 15 devices. If MS reduces that to $15 for each device, they still get the same money (or more) per person and it doesn't seem so expensive.
This only goes so far however. Soon even $15 or even $5 will be too much, when a music player costs $15 and has the power a pentium 4. Those that run free software will be the only ones that can even compete.
Another issue has nothing to do with money but rather with hassle. I personally got really turned off with proprietary software largely because of the hassle: having enter 24 digit product activation keys; realizing I can't run a lot of software on more than one computer without a new license; having to enter in the key AND phone the company anyway to get it activated; getting bugged every year or two for every app that needs upgrading and a new tax to pay; changing my hard drive and adding RAM and a new NIC to a box only to find that Windows deactivated; upgrading to Vista only to find that my Photoshop CS2 doesn't and won't run on it, I'll have to upgrade to CS3 for $$$; etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. Imagine going through this on 15 different little devices for every little app. you like. And with cheaper hardware, people will just buy a new XYZ device every year or two. Imagine transferring apps and licenses to your new XYZ every year and having 15 devices of various kinds.
In the coming world of pervasive computing, proprietary software in general is a bankrupt model, and FOSS, especially in the last year or two, is making giant strides and has all the momentum. It's starting to snowball. I have yet to hear of anything FOSS can't conceivably do because of any inate failing in the concept. I mean games don't run on Linux because people don't write Linux games, not because Linux is incapable of running games fantastically. Therefore, it's only a matter of time and will. I've only been watching FOSS for about 3 years, but in that time, nearly every shortcoming I've seen in the various apps has been recognized and 90% of it has already been solved. Even if Linux and FOSS all kind of sucked it would still be compelling, but I think increasing it's actually superior. I don't think it's a matter of if proprietary software can stay dominant, I think it's a matter of how and why it could conceivably survive more than another 10 years.
*head explodes* You are a fucking retarded. You have to license the algorithms to decode mp3 - the patents have not been shown to be too broad in court, so until they are, you need to pay or sue - ignoring the issue is not an option in bussiness jesus fucking christ. Not that it's even that expensive.
Licensing rates - as low as $0.75
Get your head out of your opensource ass, if Linux wants to play in the business world, you have to pay licensing for technologies that are NOT open source that your customers want. If you don't understand that, then you need to grow the fuck up.
sure it was a little Trollish, but it's still true.
Advertises? Irrelevant. Citation needed that advertising is irrelevant. Any offering of a consumer product that is not properly marketed can never be more than a token effort because not enough people know that the product even exists. When companies have made token efforts to offer Linux PCs, we have seen the kind of spin that the companies applied to the inevitable failure of such efforts: nobody wanted our unadvertised Linux PC; therefore, nobody wants a Linux PC. The enthymeme has a missing premise, and requiring a product to be advertised closes this loophole.
"Unfortunately, the lowest priced hardware tends to be the hardest to get working with Linux."
This is also true of Windows. For those who have tried to get a Toshiba laptop functioning properly using a boxed version of Windows XP, they'll see no difference with Linux.
Most OEMs bundle "their" Windows with their hardware. Toshiba, for example, images a version of Windows XP with all the drivers for their hardware installed. If you were packaging Linux with as an OEM, you would do the same thing.
When using a boxed Windows XP, the Toshiba laptop here needed video card drivers, WiFi drivers, and audio card drivers downloaded and installed. I would expect the same to be true with a comparable Linux distribution. I'm sure that before HP ships a Linux machine, they have installed all the drivers for the hardware in the machine. Additionally, the lower end hardware has probably more "customized" Windows images on it.
Ask anyone who has rebuilt a laptop from an original Windows XP installation. Then ask them how many drivers were need to bring the machine to the OEM bundle performance. The same would be true of a Linux distribution.
For example, do we call Apple's OS "OSX NextStep/BSD"??? :-)
No.
But the origins of the OSs are so different, it's a stupid question.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
- The install process. In linux, if you need an application that you can get via apt-get, good. Otherwise? Compile your own. Which means that as the libraries get replaced due to security or other issues, you have to recompile those third party applications. Also, you have to figure out by yourself which development packages you need. And so on and so forth. Are we kidding? On a Mac, I drag these things in the application folder and that's it! Also on linux, once something breaks in the dependencies, good luck fixing it.
- Video. I like 24 inch and 30 inch flat panels. Getting them to work under linux is a pain. If the card is too old, Ubuntu does not support it well. If it is too new, neither. Also, 1920x1200 is not a standard resolution. Oh, and once you get it running, try to have your laptop automatically adapt to the native resolution of the LCD you happen to connect it. You need at the very least to restart X. And don't dream of dealing with the fact that, at work, my laptop is on the left of the flat panel (and I like to use them both), and at home, on the right. On a Mac? You plug the LCD in and you are done. Nothing to tinker with. Rearranging the logical position of the screens? Just drag them around.
- Configuration files. In linux, everybody assumes you love the command line. I needed recently to have a file containing an encrypted partition to store there my email. In linux, the instruction began thus: "It is very simple. Create a file
/etc/idontknowwhat containing the list of partitio...." are we kidding? And if the partition is on a USB stick I have to do it on every PC on which I want to read my email?? On the Mac, I just create an encrypted partition with the disk and that's it, no tinkering with configuration files.
- Wireless. In linux, after a few times I suspend/wake up my laptop, and change networks, always something goes wrong, and I have to reboot to see the network again (on a Thinkpad X40). Never had issues on my Mac.
- I can get frequency scaling, disk spinoff, and all that to work on linux, but just because I am (or used to be) a hacker. On a Mac? No issues, it just works.
And the list goes on and on... I have come to the conclusion that linux is fine if you (a) like tinkering with computers per se, or (b) install it on a server. Otherwise, it's essentially a way to waste your time.This is also true of Windows. For those who have tried to get a Toshiba laptop functioning properly using a boxed version of Windows XP, they'll see no difference with Linux.
The particular difference that I saw is that my cheap WiFi card came with a Windows driver in the box, but I have been unable to find a working Linux driver for it and I've been unable to get a wrapper around the Windows driver to work under Linux. When I start seeing cheap hardware shipping with Linux drivers I'll believe that Windows and Linux users see no difference. Can anyone point me to a WiFi card for my desktop that does ship with a Linux driver?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
But dont most major manufacturers ( like dell, levono, HP ) have to apply the 'tax' even if you dont include windows? I thought that was part of their contract to get the 'special deal'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But the Rtical is not about gmaes, its about the compters themselfs. The gmaes on Linix wold not wrok bettr on these cheep compters, becos theid be to slow.
Good WINE on bad compters will just end up with durnk compters!
IBM's OS/2 was dead when IBM failed to make profit from it
Isn't the reason OS/2 died was because both IBM and Microsoft were developing it then MS pulled out after Windows 3.x?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Try Xandros(and no,I don't work for them,I just never have any trouble with their distro). I couldn't get Ndiswrapper to play nice with my broadcom, but Xandros installed,configured,and ran it out of the box. While the cost isn't much cheaper than OEM Windows,the lack of hassle and easy licenses (you are allowed to install on as many machines as you own for non-commercial use,and one for commercial use) make it worth it. Try the free trial for Pro,and if it works for you the home version(which the only difference is AD connectivity) can be found for $29 here-http://www.thenerds.net/CHANNEL_SOURCES_DISTRIBUTION_CO.Xandros_Desktop_Home_Edition_Complete_Product.DSKS400NAEN.html?affid=1&srccode=cii_9324560&cpncode=08-32269569-2&affid=3
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Neither.
OEM Linux disappeared from Walmart.com in late January.
Walmart.com's cheapest Compaq Presario has an Athlon Dual Core CPU, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD, DVD burner, GeForce 6150 SE graphics and runs Vista Basic. $348.
Top of the line at $1900:
The HP Elite with Intel Core 2 Quad CPU, 3 GB RAM, 2 500 GB HDDs, ATSC tuner, etc., running Vista Ultimate
And where are Wal-Mart's national advertisements for this product line?
Where they have always been: In Limbo. Non-existent.
KDE seemed to be adopting Xine, and is now planning something called "Phonon" or something. GNOME uses Gstreamer. VLC and Mplayer use ffmpeg.
There are some one-way connections between these, so that most codecs are well supported somewhere. But it's far from perfect, far from just being able to buy a single WMV codec (say) and expecting it to automatically work everywhere.
That said, the few that you actually need are available, semi-legally, through Medibuntu. It's all well documented, because there are people using it legally -- that is, they live in countries with saner IP laws. And it has the added benefit of being mostly open source, working very well, and having an actual repository, such that you can get updates through apt, and in turn, through Ubuntu's GUI for software updates.
I doubt that would apply to a proprietary solution, even ignoring the part about it being open or proprietary.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
There was a time when building your own computer was much cheaper, because Dell was basically making their profit by assembling your computer for you.
Not so much the case, anymore. Last time I looked, Dell was able to get much better deals on components than I was. They do sell Linux now, but apparently, they and other manufacturers actually make the money they spent on Windows back by being paid to put trial/crapware on the machine.
But if you consider that you're paying for Windows, then yes, it is a "tax" on most prebuilt machines. Dell is one of the few who offer machines without Windows, let alone with Linux, and it's not their whole product line.
Now, you are unique here -- you do use it in a virtual environment, which means you pay for every license independently, and you pay for them with the intent to use them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
not the OS that comes with it.
More faster everything in a smaller package on a bigger screen with the latest tech like WAN modems, all flavors of wifi, and a new crisp keyboard.
I'm typing this on my new Macbook Pro which I specifically got because it didn't have Windows crapware and spyware on it. Both, the hardware and software, are better.
FalconShould there be a Law?
1) HP Vista laptops ship with recovery DVDs, there is no reason to create one.
This is incorrect. My HP vista laptop (HP Pavilion dv6258se) didn't come with recovery DVDs. I had to go through the annoying 'let us make you a recovery dvd. PS this is a one time process, don't mess it up' and of course... it failed to burn the 2nd one. At least it let me restart the process completely including remaking the images before burning again, total time of well over an hour. I'd guess different models have different recovery disc methods.
Having had to fix a bootloader issue, I can clearly say that these home brewed recovery DVDs are not a real vista DVD set. They have no recovery capabilities, they are the standard proprietary reformat the HD and start from scratch sort. I had to use a 'real' vista DVD.
On an entirely different matter - I'd suggest staying away from HP if you want to switch wifi cards. They vendor lock specific cards requiring a BIOS hack to get something like the latest atheros cards to work. A totally unnecessary annoyance.
The cheapest machins is not going to be linux simply becuase the cheapest machine is going to supported through ads, which is not Linux.
About a year ago I bought a new PC with Linux preinstalled. The cheapest PC I saw with comparable stats that had Windows as the OS was about twice as much.
For throw away machines, then, such as are used in the office, MS is going to be a good value as long as Dell and HP are in the MS pocket. The same holds true for single computer homes.
The PC I got is basically like this. Because I'm not employed, I'm on disability, when my Windows PC died I had to get something cheap. Now that I've been paid back for some expenses I was able to buy a new Macbook Pro. However I'll still use my Linux PC, I plan to set it up as a server. I'm hoping to break into photography, both as a photographer and in setting up websites for other photographers. So I'll need the hdd space the Linux PC has. While my MBP has a 200GB hdd my Linux PC has two hdds, one is 750GB and 200GB are already used on it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm here to help. There are plenty of good wifi cards out there that linux supports out of the box. Here's one that works flawlessly out of the box. Also, if you don't mind telling me which card you have I may be able to help you out. Email me at chuckyb21 at hotmail dot com if you would like a hand.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
I'd say the biggest difference is that with Windows, the illegal monopoly it is based on makes it ubiquitous...
I fixed your typo.
end users don't buy operating systems - they buy computers. the price tag is not itemized. it's $X and that covers hardware and preinstalled software. It won't be until OEMs distribute Linux side-by-side with Windows and people see that the equivalent box is $Y cheaper to have Linux on board. and yes... it needs to be a distro with preconfigured repositories to add the software people want/need. It also will require developers (ie the Linux community and major commercial vendors) to write the software people want/need. btw: all I did was regurgitate exactly the answer everyone provides when someone poses that question. I guess I should have prefaced my response with "dude - search the archives before asking".
Power to the Penguin!
Am I the only one who thinks that hardware costs really dont matter ? People will want windows because thats what their old computer had, all their files are in Office formats, and thats what they use at work. Microsoft will have a round of negotiations with OEMs and drop the price of the license by 10%. The end users are happy (All their data works, and they get to say... look I got a $400 piece of software with my $250 computer). The OEMs are happy cos for low end systems volume is everything, so more the people buying, more serious coin they make. And Microsoft is happy, because it did not have to cut prices by a lot. Additionally, they get their favorite upgrade path reopened; using better hardware to compensate for bad software.
Legally obligatory sig : My opinions are my own... etc etc
Really? Until perhaps 2000, Windows didn't come with MP3 support. To this day, it still doesn't come with AAC support, and WMA is a joke.
Windows doesn't include popular video codecs, either. Divx/MPEG-4 is everywhere, but NOT included with Windows... Everyone's still forced to download the codec from Divx.com... And, you guessed it, they provide a Linux version as well.
So, nobody is going to take Linux seriously, because it requires a couple clicks in Synaptic to install every audio and video codec you could ever want (MPlayer/libavcodec). But everyone takes Windows seriously, because it forces you to trawl the web to find every single individual video and audio codec you want to use...
I can see you're right. Linux* is going in the wrong direction... It should be MORE Windows-like, and make multimedia encoding and playback infinitely more difficult.
And as for MP3s... The patent expires in a couple years, and the point becomes moot (see: GIFs).
* (Disclaimer: I'm actually a FreeBSDer... Long live Slackware)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
MacOS needs almost no geekery but is more expensive for well specced machines
Similarly specified computers from Apple and Windows OEMs don't show much of a difference in prices. I've seem similarly specified Macs and Dells, one spec will have the Mac a little higher and another will have the Mac lower. Unfortunately Apple doesn't have low priced Macs that are highly configurable. Most any Windows PC will allow you to add hardware, another graphics card, firewire, and hdd, change the motherboard, what have you but in order to get a Mac with the same flexibility you have to get a Mac Pro which starts at around $2500. All the other Macs are designed as throwaways, you use it for a couple of years then you replace it. I thing Apple does a big disservice because of this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sorry, but if they really do know Windows that well, they wouldn't have a problem with Linux. The interfaces are similar enough, really.
I'd say, the biggest problems are the intermediate users, who know all kinds of things about a system by rote, but not really. These are the kind who look at Linux and ask questions like "Where's my C drive? How do I defrag? This thing says my RAM is 100% full?!"
If they're smart enough to ask those questions, it will be a long and difficult learning curve. Many don't bother to ask, they just go back to Windows, and provide a brand new batch of FUD.
Of course, some people have to use Windows anyway. But not all of these use it because they're afraid of Linux.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If a company can make a $200 laptop, and Windows is adding another, what, $70 to the cost? Well, I imagine at least one of them would take a chance preinstalling Windows and having a laptop that's some 35% cheaper, and will be used for essentially the same stuff.
And if it's preinstalled by an OEM who actually cares (read: not Dell), it will come with all the hardware support it needs. They'll hand-pick components that are known for good support, and pre-load the more obscure drivers, if any.
Look at the Asus Eee PC, for an example of what this will look like.
The only remaining question is whether people will accept an OS that doesn't necessarily support all of their software, looks and feels a bit different, etc, on a $200 device. No, scratch that, they already do on a $400 device (iPhone), so why not?
Maybe it will come down to ease of use, but either way, it is absolutely a software question. The hardware issue is not a question, it's an answer: When computer prices get that cheap, either the cost of Windows will come down a LOT, or people WILL start to see it as an additional burden, and not something that just comes with their PC.
Oh, and as someone else pointed out, the reason Windows works so well on cheap hardware, or even not-so-cheap hardware, is entirely the pre-install. I spent from 10 AM to like 8 PM on a workday (with breaks for lunch and dinner), doing nothing but installing XP and tracking down drivers on a brand-new, made-for-Vista Toshiba laptop. Apparently, there are XP drivers, but only on the Toshiba UK site -- I downloaded a video driver straight from nVidia (yes, it is an nVidia card) and it wouldn't work, not till I got the same driver from the UK site.
So, yeah, Vista came out of the box and ready to go, but as I've detailed elsewhere, the software needed (MICROSOFT software, btw) required XP.
Oh well. It was paid time, which is kind of nice, considering that on my own, it takes roughly a half hour to get everything working on Linux, video drivers included. Yes, for some reason, the same fucking driver for XP would not recognize my card, but works fine on Linux.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Precisely because if something was broken, they would complain about Linux.
In fact, I've had this happen -- was talking to someone who had computer trouble, and I suggested switching to Linux, as they had no Windows install media, and I couldn't save their current install. Turns out, they hate Linux, because they used it once, on a friend's computer, for a few hours -- and said friend had rented the computer with Linux already on it.
So, apparently, shitty installs like this reflect poorly on Linux, and not on the manufacturer. This has long been the case, btw -- anytime something goes wrong with Linux, it's Linux's fault, whereas when something goes wrong with Windows, it's some hardware manufacturer's fault for writing a buggy driver, or the OEM for installing a crappy version, or the user for not maintaining it properly.
I wish this wasn't the case, because I think that, for most purposes, Linux is the best we've got. (It's still crap, and it's the best we've got; what does that say about us?) But in order for someone to stay on Linux, it can't so much as hiccup, or they'll go running back to Windows.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
... cheap hardware means cheap Vista-capable computers. Don't forget the swing goes both ways.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are either making up a good story are just full of crap.
Costco.. model dv6604cl Purchased this week.
The slip in the box states;
Restore your system without discs
Your computer includes a new system recovery feature that does not require CDs or DVDs.
If you need to repair your system, you can do it from the hard drive or from your own set of recovery discs.
To burn your own set of recovery discs, select Start> Recovery Manager > click Advanced Options > Recovery disc creation.
Having personally broken the HP security tape on the box and completing the inventory of the contents, I can assure you there are no recovery discs in the box. At the bottom of the page it states,
Important: HP recommends that you create recovery discs to be sure that you can restore your system to its original factory state if you experience serious system failure or instability.
If you want to order recovery media instead of creating your own discs, contact HP at:
htt;://www.hp.com
Copyright 2007
Hewlett-Packard Development Company I.P
The truth shall set you free!
> If a company can make a $200 laptop, and Windows is adding another, what, $70 to the
> cost? Well, I imagine at least one of them would take a chance preinstalling Windows and
> having a laptop that's some 35% cheaper, and will be used for essentially the same stuff.
The poster is missing one important item. Payments from companies for bundling their crapware (AOL intro, Norton/Macafee, Roxio, Google Toolbar, etc, etc) can generate nore revenue for the OEM than the cost of an OEM Windows licence. If anything, Windows machines end up being *LESS EXPENSIVE* than "bare" machines.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
That's pretty dumb logic. If hardware became free, then any software cost would stand out. That doesn't mean you wouldn't value software enough to pay for it.
After all, you're using the software. It's the software that does the work -- as our culture has defined it. The hardware does the labour. Our culture values decision-making over labour. Not all cultures do. Ours does.
As for the cost of windows itself? Come on. What's a few hundred dollars? Vista's a whopping $150 for a home consumer. It's the cost of a new cell phone. It's the cost of a nice dinner for two. It's the cost of a pair of good show tickets. Damn, it's the cost of a single great show ticket.
And it's your entire operating system! It touches everything you do. From stability, backup, and reliability to basic games, basic publishing, and basic tools, and even advanced media creation and consumption.
And lest we forget, your favourite game is nothing without directx -- a part of the operating system. And your favourite word processor is nothing with the windows API. It can be your television, your boom box, your music player, your storage, your backup, your school work and your office work.
Oh yeah, and you get to browse the internet too.
You don't like it? You don't have to buy it. You don't have to buy anything that anyone wants to sell to you. But you don't get to blame them for selling what they want to sell.
No, Windows 2000 was only for big corporate users. Few home users saw that until XP (2003?), and who upgrades immediately?
That was LONG, LONG after MP3 had become an extremely popular, must-have item (7+ years I'd say). Long after Napster, long after Gnutella, etc. Winamp was installed on every computer. The lack of MP3 support in Windows didn't hurt MP3 one bit, nor the popularity of Windows.
In that case MP3 is 2 billion years old, and Microsoft missed more than half of it. It didn't send Windows down the tubes.
And, of course, you're ignoring every other example I gave...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
But I wanted RH and my cousin wanted SUSE. How come we don't get any love? Just because Ubuntu is easy to install?
Also, my cousin wants a KDE desktop and I want the other one.
... dhcp didn't work? if physically connecting your router and computer with an ethernet cable requires additional setup afterwards, you have some other issues...
>Try the free trial for Pro,and if it works for you the home version(which the only difference is AD connectivity) can be found for $29
Ok, so to get something working you need to PAY.... Don't you find that a bit ironic?
Are you not making an argument that Windows will remain king of the hill since Windows [fill in the version] Home edition is probably about 50 USD. So for an extra 20 USD you get a full working Windows edition that is compatible with your software...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
this has got to be the best post on /. re linux vs ms in the last two year
simple
elegant
in the real world
it brings up another point: if the software is freee then walmart and best buy make more money rebranding linux with their in house support - if you were CFO of walmart, I bet you would loveyour own linux that you can charge warranty/service for , like geek squad at best buy
thier is just one small problem: for most people linux doesnt work, in the sense of not having codecs, not having wireless etc etc
fix that an MS is dead
For some years now, I've been able to buy the end-of-life hardware from the Government office I work for. Best deal I ever got was a Pentium 2 - 400mhz Compaq for $33.00 ... complete with keyboard, mouse, monitor the lot. I already had a retail copy of Windows ME, so the PC currently running it got shelved, and that's where the Windows ME went. That disc cost me $220.00.
... did I buy another copy of Windows for the next PC I got? That was the point where I decided it was time to try running only Linux on my great purchases from the office.
:-)
Do the math
I'm typing this on a HP d530 with a 2.8 ghz Pentium D chip, 512MB RAM that cost me $185.00 : running Ubuntu 7.04 for maximum value
The same is going to apply for new hardware, if it is possible to buy without Windows being already installed, as long as people know about the possibility. I'm telling anyone who will listen. And Dell is now selling PCs and laptops with Ubuntu preinstalled!
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Well, Wifi is something of a problem case for Linux at the moment. As is (or maybe was) the case with high-end gaming graphics cards, the manufacturers are loath to give out any kind of specs for someone to write a driver with. At least with graphics cards you can usually download a proprietary binary driver from somewhere (assuming it works with the current kernel), but there seems to be precious little support for Linux when it comes to wifi cards.
A lot of other things do work very well, though. Some things such as Bluetooth work even better under Linux than Windows. And, if you're really desperate to get some crappy old hardware from the year dot working, you'll probably find there's something in the kernel source tree that covers it, if you can/want to roll your own.
For most cheap PCs sold these days, that probably won't be the case though. Most come with some on-board Intel graphics card and realtek or national semiconducters NIC, both of which will work as soon as you insert the Live CD. OpenOffice is usable enough for a business. It gets the job done, and it's cheap (ie: free). Desktop environments like KDE are making it very easy for someone from a Windows background to use Linux. Live CDs themselves make it very easy to check whether a particular distribution will work "out of the box" on any particular hardware combination, without touching the contents of your hard disk drive.
I've said before that Linux distros aren't quite ready "for the desktop", meaning they're not quite ready to sit in the living room of someone who's most complex involvement with computers involves 12 buttons and two thumbsticks. However for a business that just wants one or more workstations with an office suite sufficient for writing letters and spreadsheets, accessing the Internet/Intranet and maintaining a database, Linux is perfect. It's easy enough to use (I never thought I'd hear myself say that). A lot of businesses that don't want to worry about computers breaking get some kind of support contract anyway, and the hardware is cheap as chips. That's without going into its more advanced capabilities as a server OS, or some of the UI tweaking and effects you can get out of things like Compiz (things that, coincidentally, work just fine on cheap on-board Intel graphics cards).
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
The MP3 patent hasn't long to run, and isn't even valid in most of the world. It'd almost be worth someone's while just chancing it. Even if they do get found out before the expiry of the patent, the courts will probably have drier lentils to soak than possible infringement of a now-expired patent (which formerly was of questionable validity anyway), by someone who hasn't much by way of assets.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I find that VLC struggles with windows media files, quicktime and realplayer files and streams. However, if the choice is between doing without and installing realplayer/quicktime/windows media player, i will do without.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
>Few home users saw that until XP (2003?), and who upgrades immediately?
Jsut to be a stickler, actually XP was released in Oct 2001. I belive though that what you meant to say is that it didn't acquire an overwhelming majority of the marketshare till early 2003.
The eee comes with Linux pre-installed. Sorry, all the things you were complaining about are now irrelevant.
This percentage factor is well understood in retail industry. If you go into a shop with the the idea of buying a computer (big ticket item) you're already programmed yourself to spend a large amount. That's why the sales droid will put in a lot of effort to sell you extras (printers etc) when you buy a big ticket item. It is far easier to get someone to spend a few hundred extra on a new printer and other peripherals etc when they're spending up large than trying to do the same when they're just buying a new mouse or a pack of CDs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Great. Where can I buy one?
Oh.
"Sorry, all the things you were complaining may at some point in the future become irrelevant."
There. Fixed that for you.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
... dhcp didn't work? if physically connecting your router and computer with an ethernet cable requires additional setup afterwards, you have some other issues...
I had no trouble with my Linux PC. All I did was unpack it plug everything in and bootup. It worked right out of the box and didn't require any archaic settings. I didn't setup my print though, it's usb and I didn't know how to. Maybe I could of just plugged it in and it would of been recognized. At the tyme though I was still able to use my Windows PC so I didn't bother. However all it wanted was user accounts to be setup and it walked through that holding your hand with a gui.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Most consumers have been conditioned to be finnicky. They are used to being in control; they understand value; and they have no allegiance. Given this backdrop, and the generally crappy product Microsoft has supplied over the years pre-XP-SP2, I'd say "massive discontent" is accurate.
There are some /. Windows users who have no problem with it, just as there are simple users. My brother in law is one. Though he's not a computer user by training, he's a law school grad but is a Certified Financial Planner, CFP, he adeptly uses Windows.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As for GNOME, my mother manages fine with the file dialogs and they seem straightforward enough to me.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
.... I can't see cheap hardware changing that........
I also can't see the fact that so many around here fail to grasp that it's the software that makes a computer what it is. That wouldn't change, even if the hardware cost less than a roll of toilet paper. Hardware can be mass produced by the millions, using cheap labor and machines. Software still has to be written by highly skilled people. I cannot be automated. There are no software writing machines. These highly skilled people have come up with increasingly clever ways to ensure that their work is harder and harder to rip off by cheap software copying procedures. Linux might get off the ground if a large hardware company would tell MS where to go and make a good, bulletproof release of Linux their only computer product, as well as give good support to their users.
All theory is gray
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Until and unless linux can find a way to run the games that windows runs, linux will not grow on desktops of the average american computer consumer. Running games is how windows got its position. All the so called 'killer apps' were already present in the DOS environment...and in IBM's would be monopoly candidate OS/2 and the horribly unfortunate 'BOB'. People chose microsoft not for business but for games. The early business software even pandered to this by incorporating a so called 'boss key' that allowed time wasting office Dilberts to switch away from their game to a convincing looking fake 'spreadsheet' whenever he/she felt the 'boss' was watching. Ubuntu writers should look at this and incorporate this facility to run games in their next edition or as an upgrade,as real upgrade and not a DRM downgrade like 'Veeeesta'. Ubuntu..you do not have much time before micro$ finds a way out of their current episode of rare footchoppingoffness. A way needs to be found to support the current european movement to force an end to the practice of bundling that requires all computer buyers to also buy malware like micro$$.
While I don't want to pick sides here (I don't know the guy - he can well have been obnoxious, as you say) what you said DOES in fact point more towards the 'linux isn't ready for the desktop yet' then the opposite. The fact that you expect somebody to have a windows OS ready in case the Ubuntu one screws up inherently implies it's not up to par. I doubt people from MS would advice to have an ubuntu OS ready in case installing their OS fails.
I myself had troubles installing Ubuntu too (though, it was the former version, not the latest one). On the other hand, I never had trouble with a win version, as yet (even though my first one was win95). That said, I never had trouble with installing Mandrake Linux (as it was called, back then), so I'm not claiming Linux is impossible to install. But it must be said it's more difficult to use then windows. not for the Linux-expert, of course. And strangely enough, also not for the grandmother who just wants to surf and email a bit (linux has improved enough for that)...no, it's what I would call the 'power-users' who *aren't linux-experts who can't really do much with it.
They want MORE than just surfing or the normal application-stuff; they want to install and try out a whole plethora of new, sometimes rather obscure programs and applications - and it's a pain in the ass if you want to run them on linux - if it's possible at all.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well think on this: how much of the development is paid for by the price of the old version? All of it. How much of the code is the same as the old version. Most of it. How much does it cost to buy the new version? More.
Remember, in hardware, it still costs more to make the products because you still need people to make it and ship it. Software has a lot of tools that make creating new software faster than ever before, make complex projects easier to work with than ever before. These approximate the automation tools that hadrware has to reduce costs.
And when each extra copy costs practically nil to make when it's software...
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 hour, 15 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
I honestly think that this would be very beneficial when it comes to the distribution and release of the OLPC. Hopefully this effect will somehow lower down the production costs.
Have you never heard of the concept of proofreading?
Couple of comments here:
When others try to be helpful, they toss out ideas, seeds of a brainstorm that might invoke some sort of suggestion about what might work. However, UbuntuDupe shoots down the ideas. For example: Then UbuntuDupe says:
This is his response to the very first person trying to help. Other responses to comments are similar, in that while telling erstwhile helpers that their suggestions are not helping, he includes snide remarks about Ubuntu: "Naive me..." or "I should never have believed all the crap," etc. Thus he is discouraging the very people who are trying to help.
I don't think that UbuntuDupe is deliberately being unpleasant toward people trying to help him; it seems like he is simply intrinsically so. I wonder if he interpreted the comments from others, subconsciously or otherwise, as a sort of criticism or a sign that he was not "1337" enough, and became defensive.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Unfortunately, the lowest priced hardware tends to be the hardest to get working with Linux
Yes, but the idea is not about the cheapest crap, but rather the falling prices of hardware.
If people find that hardware is more affordable, they can go buy more and experiment with less fear. We will have to see how the market forces will change the landscape. Will enthusiasts get more attention from hardware makers who see sales go to Linux-ready devices? Will Windows prices drop to match hardware prices? Will Windows sell better when affordable hardware makes it easier to use?
Hardware cost reductions will help Linux adoption. Many people who buy computers do not want to buy Windows incompatible machines. So they figure they may as well use Windows. If they can buy enough performance though, they can install Linux on a virtual machine and learn it. People figure they have to spend more just to be able to run Windows well, and then even more to run Linux and Windows together.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.