$200 Linux PCs On Sale At Wal-Mart

Placid sends in a Wired blog entry on Wal-Mart's new sub-$200 Linux-based PC. Wired calls it "a custom distribution of Ubuntu Linux," and the AP identifies the distro as gOS, made by a small company in Los Angeles. Wal-Mart began selling Linux PCs in 2002 but they have been out of stock for a while. From the Wired blog: "It has a 1.5 Ghz VIA C7 CPU embedded in a Mini-ITX motherboard, 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software. By using the fast Enlightenment desktop manager (instead of heavier-duty alternatives like Gnome or KDE), the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers."

Comments

Interesting

[stoolpigeon]

I saw this yesterday and was considering if it would as the next pc for my parents. I don't think so - for one reason, powerpoint. But my folks might be a little unusual with that requirement. I also wonder if my dad could sync his palm to it.
 
Then we'd need to make sure that their printers are going to work all right. And I'd probably need to teach them how to use new software for printing photos. The more I think about it, as much as I hate to say it, the less I think it would work.

Re:Interesting

[Silver Sloth]

Then we'd need to make sure that their printers are going to work all right. And I'd probably need to teach them how to use new software for printing photos. The more I think about it, as much as I hate to say it, the less I think it would work. As someone who got Vista with a new PC I can assure you these problems are not limited to *nix.

Re:Interesting

[Nibbler999]

There's a powerpoint equivalent (Presentation) in Open Office.

Re:Interesting

[langelgjm]

Yeah, I've been thinking about a new machine for my parents for a while now, though this isn't much of an upgrade from what they currently have (though I'm sure it runs faster.) Then I saw this:

Even at the low end, however, image is everything. The gPC is built using tiny components, but put inside a full-size case because research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers are so unsophisticated they equate physical size with capability.

I think it's silly, because I'd rather have desk space, but I have to admit my first thought was, "That's what SHE said!"

Re:Interesting

[Albanach]

And ideologies suck.

Not nearly as much as monopolies.

If you can afford Office 2007 go ahead and buy it, but as already discussed, this machine isn't going to be very good at running windows, so you'll need a different PC too.

Be aware though, that as OpenOffice continues to develop and becomes more of a competitor, you as a MS user will benefit, through more money being spent on R&D to bring you new features, as MS try to maintain their lead, as well as lower costs as MS try remain competitive.

Without competition, you'll see MS continue to develop their software like they did between 1999 and 2006 where windows saw only an incremental improvement between Windows 2K and Windows XP and Office changed even less.

Re:Interesting

[walt-sjc]

Neither of these can yet (YET) hold a candle to Office.

I beg to differ.

So you would buy MS Office at $460 for a $200 PC? And of course that also needs a windows license for another $210 so you are up to $670 worth of software for a $200 PC. Then of course you would need the commercial equivalents for all the other software that comes with that machine which would probably run around a total of $2500+ for a $200 PC. Yeah - that makes a lot of sense for home users (the target market.)

Say what you will about Open (Star) Office but it handles 95% of the business documents I deal with perfectly on a daily basis. It should handle 99.999% of the home needs just fine. The only reason it can't handle the remaining 5% is due to Microsoft's refusal to fully document and release specifications to the MS Office file formats. It's not OK to support a company that illegally abuses it's monopoly status to damage competition.

Re:Interesting

[dintech]

The only thing that worries me here is that this will be a lot of consumers first experiences with Linux. Does this really demonstrate modern Linux in the best possible light? From a visual and usability point of view I can't help but think that the average consumer will be disappointed even in comparison to older MS operating systems. But then what do you want for $200?

Re:Interesting

[oatworm]

As I'm sure you're already aware, OEM pricing is very different from full retail, plus it's not like he's going to need Office Professional (the one that would cost $460) just to get Powerpoint. Looking at MS's product matrix, he could get away with "Home & Student" and still get Powerpoint - that can be had from Newegg for $129, and includes Word, Office, Powerpoint, and OneNote. Compare to StarOffice, which is $70 - yes, you get most of the same functionality, but it's still not quite the same; the point, however, is that this is less than a third of the price you quoted.

Windows licensing, meanwhile, is not $210 for OEM licensing. A NewEgg search reveals that you can get OEM licensing in packs of three for roughly $410; that works out to under $140 per license. Obviously, mass-manufacturers of PCs get much more favorable licensing pricing than that, but, for the sake of argument, we'll say that the customer is paying $140. This is still $70 less than the number you pulled out.

So, at this point, we've spent no more than $270 in software. Is this $270 you don't have to spend if you get the WalMart Linux PC? Of course, but if the WalMart Linux PC doesn't fit your needs, $270 is a reasonable number, and certainly much more reasonable than the hyperbole-screaming $2500 you came up with on a whim.

DISCLAIMER: I run Ubuntu Linux on everything I have because it meets my needs and does so at a price point that I am quite content with (free!). I do think that, as far as Linux distros go, it's easily the most user-friendly one that I've ever run across, and would happily recommend it to anyone that has some basic technical acumen. That said, I do not run Ubuntu because of it's philosophy, nor do I do it because of any particular dislike of Microsoft's "monopoly practices". From where I'm sitting, Microsoft did precisely what Ubuntu is doing now - they offered a lower priced (compared to the competition of the time), mostly fully featured set of applications that met the needs of a vast majority of people. Think back to the late '80s - if you wanted a GUI, the only way it was going to happen was if you bought new hardware that was incompatible with your existing IBM hardware or if you paid through the nose for OS/2... until Windows 3.0 came out. Need a server operating system? No problem - your choices were Unix (required expensive hardware, had severe vendor lock-in at the time, licensing was atrociously expensive), Netware (a little better on all counts, but still pricey), or Windows NT (same interface as all your workstations and a little cheaper). If you're a 10 person operation, guess which one you're picking? Hey, it's 1994 and you need a small database. Microsoft Access costs $100. How much does everything else cost? Oh... I see. Access it is! How about an Internet browser? Remember when those weren't free-as-in-beer? How did they get free? That's right - Internet Explorer. Were any of those products perfect? Heck no. All of their products were functionally inferior to the competition - but they met the needs of 99% of the world and cost less than their competition. Sound familiar? What people seem to forget in their haste to hate Microsoft is that, for better or worse, they were better behaved than their competition of the time. Now, their time is passing, and look who's sneaking up on them...

Re:Interesting

[xappax]

feel free to use what you want. Only don't preach, please...

This comes up a lot, this idea of "preaching". How is advising - even demanding - people to make ethical decisions "preaching"? Simply put: Technical superiority and cost aren't the only considerations that should be made when you decide which product to purchase and use.

Microsoft is an unethical business. They use monopolistic practices to distort the market to their advantage, and they lobby for and exploit restrictive laws to prevent threatening innovation in software development. Because they are such a huge business, the impact and severity of this behavior is similarly huge. It's very important as an ethical human being not to give them money or other forms of support, because if you do, you're actively aiding in their activities which harm the rest of us.

It seems to me "don't preach" is a slightly obfuscated way of saying "Don't tell me what to do". Nobody here can make you do anything, but that doesn't give you an excuse to do whatever you like, without regard to ethical considerations. And offering advice and commentary on what seems like an unethical action is far from preaching, unless "offering an analysis which takes into consideration right and wrong" falls under your definition of preaching.

"Modern" software?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "modern" software they speak of? Just how much horsepower do you need to browse the Web, type something in a word processor? Is there some sort of super Solitaire with realtime physics simulation and ray traced graphics that I don't know about?

On the Contrary ...

[eldavojohn]

Wow! Are we trying to convince people that Linux sucks? On the contrary, the article points out the hilarity that would ensue if someone would install Vista:

If users want to install Windows on it, they can, though Everex cautions that Vista will not run well without a RAM upgrade. Recent games will not run well, if at all, on the gPC: the requirements of even humble titles like World of Warcraft exceed the system specifications. I think that people are soon going to realize something that speaks to their pocket books about Linux: it runs on the slowest of hardware. Sure, webpages and plugins will require more resources but that's the great advantage Linux will always have over Windows--that minimum requirements is nearly unbeatable. So keep tweaking that kernel and you'll start to see a $150 machine go on sale that will do nearly everything. Then a $100 machine. Then an $80 machine. And so on and so forth until you'd have to be a raving lunatic (or fat rich American) to pay the beefy cost of a premium machine just so you have the resources that the latest Windows needs to consume.

How much precisely will you pay to have your UI look like glass and all your games run at the highest resolutions? I think we're approaching the point where only avid gamers & people with too much disposable income will support the ladened OS that is Windows.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[Snorpus]

If memory serves, it wasn't all that long ago (1970? 1971?) that 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB would have been the specs on a pretty high-end machine.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[Albanach]

i think you're off by about 3 decades.

Actually I think this is the first, real life example of the Y2K bug actually affecting something. He's just rolled over to the epoch.

It may have taken almost eight years, but at last the $billions spent have finally been justified.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[MBGMorden]

Despite being a big Linux advocate, the same can really be said of capable versions of Windows. My parents use an AMD K6-2 350mhz machine with an 8GB hard drive and 256mb of RAM. It's running Windows 2000 with the latest Firefox installed, and an upgrade is not anywhere on the horizon for them. My mom checks email and browses eBay. My dad checks email and keeps track of his Fantasy Football teams. That machine running that software performs those functions just fine, despite being horribly outdated. My brothers machine: a Celeron 566mhz with a 40GB hard drive and 512mb of RAM, running XP. He surfs the web, uses AIM, and does his Fantasy Football thing on it. He's also not looking at upgrading anytime soon.

The simple fact is most normal people don't know the difference between a fast computer and a slow one. The only time they normally buy a new one is when their computer gets enough spyware on it that it no longer works properly. They buy that new system because the old one was "broken", not really slow. For people with free tech support (see above), that generally doesn't happen.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[hummassa]

If memory serves, it wasn't all that long ago (1970? 1971?) that 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB would have been the specs on a pretty high-end machine. I think -- better said, I _HOPE_ -- you are joking. But, as I didn't see a smiley --

In 1970, 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB would be an billion-dollar-expensive, multiple-building-sized computer.

Hell, in 1991, when I graduated, such a machine would /still/ be a supercomputer. The 1993 Cray Y-MP C90 916/16256 (16 processors) performed at 15 MFlops (the VIA C7 should be like 75 MFlops), had 1GB of RAM, and up to 32GB of solid state disks (battery-backed RAM banks), and it was closet-sized. It's not a testimony to Linux quality the fact that it runs snappy on such a machine, it's a testimony to XP/Vista's lagginess that they don't.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[walt-sjc]

Yeah, but don't try and run Open Office on that machine. Gonna suck. Not that MS Office 2007 would run great either, but for a modern machine, it's still pretty pathetic. It's about at the year 2001 level.

For simple Web browsing / email, such a machine works fine. If they sold it as an email / web appliance, that would be better, but to sell it as a general purpose home PC is a little disingenuous especially as it won't run any other software that Walmart sells.

Re:On the Contrary ...

[Kadin2048]

In 1990 or 91 it would have been a supercomputer, too.

1991 was pre-Pentium; hot stuff then would have been a 68040 if you were a Mac user, and some sort of 486 if you used PCs.

I don't get what people's problem is with the performance of this thing. Granted, I don't upgrade very quickly (I have a dual-1GHz machine and an ancient headless Pentium-133 box under my desk, and the dual-GHz box only replaced a 400MHz one last year), but that's more than enough power for everything except gaming.

Frankly I'd like to see consumer hardware plateau so we can get off of the upgrade treadmill, and the software people can start groveling around retirement communities to find someone who knows what 'optimization' means. It's absolutely ridiculous that people think you can't do typical productivity tasks on a 1.5GHz machine.

Summary missed the most part: Case

[bagofcrap]

These computers are in cases that would fit a full-size ATX motherboard. Supposedly Wallmart did a survey, and found that most of their customers believe "Bigger is Better", even when it isn't. It is not a terrible deal given that it's a mini-ATX motherboard, but using that big a case for it is just wasting space.

Even better than that, the computers being sold as 'green PC' meaning thats the mfr's product name, and has nothing to do with being enviromentally conscious.

Re:Summary missed the most part: Case

[timeOday]

It is not a terrible deal given that it's a mini-ATX motherboard, but using that big a case for it is just wasting space.

It provides more room for expandability. I can certainly see wanting to at least add a second hard drive for backups.

has nothing to do with being enviromentally conscious.

From the Via website: " Developed from the ground up for low power operation, the VIA C7 processor is based on the advanced VIA CoolStream(TM) Architecture and manufactured using IBM's state-of-the-art 90nm Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) process, and delivers the greatest performance per watt in the business.

Capable of running up to 2.0GHz with ultra low power consumption of around 20 watts peak power and operating at an average power of less than 1 watt, the VIA C7 processor is the embodiment of cool processing and sets the standards for next generation of desktop, mobile and personal electronics systems."

Re:Summary missed the most part: Case

[jeblucas]

Even better than that, the computers being sold as 'green PC' meaning thats the mfr's product name, and has nothing to do with being enviromentally conscious.

Not only that, I heard that Alienware PC's are in fact, not made by aliens at all.

Sounds like a servicable Web/mail server to me...

[DamonHD]

Probably quite power-efficient with that chipset so long as they have a recent (tickless) kernel in it, such as with Gutsy, though I would like a little more memory for one of my apps:

http://www.earth.org.uk/low-power-laptop.html

Might also do nicely as an off-the-shelf monitoring device for networks, HVAC, etc...

If they sell one at a similar price here I might buy one to play with.

Rgds

Damon

More ....

[Ancient_Hacker]

• More responsive than Vista!
• More responsible than Congress!
• A better parent than Britney!
• More reliable than IE 1.0!
• More secure than walking down an alley in the South Bronx at 2 AM!
• More fun than a root-canal at the Albanian Dental School!

unacceptably low-end?

[coyote-san]

Unacceptably low-end for modern software? Huh? I do some development at home, but other than that nearly all of my time is spent either reading email or surfing the web. Neither is particularly heavy.

And I'm happy with my bottom-end MicroCenter PCs that cost under $300, even with the development work. I did double the memory to 1GB, but that was the only change for two years. (Last week I decided to add a low-end NVIDIA card.)

I'll grant you that it's not a great choice for playing movies, and would undoubtably suck as a game platform, but for a lot of people that system would easily satisfy their needs and is far more affordable than the crap I've seen pushed at the same market -- get a 'name brand' pc for only $19.99/week for a year!

So is it for everyone? No. Is it a good choice for a lot of people? Yes.

Re:Oh great!

[Selfbain]

We'll probably need more people then to keep up the level of mockery people have come to expect.

first, let's kill the all the developers.

[mcmonkey]

the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers

Not to go off on a rant but my #1 pet peeve with software, especially anything from Microsoft, is all the hardware gains of the past 20 years are lost of bad software. Whether due to bad design (feature bloat) or bad execution, Vista and MS Office on current consumer hardware aren't any more responsive than Win 3 and Word or AmiPRO or whatever was running back in the day.

There was a /. story recently linking to a web log article about security analysis. The author, an employee of Microsoft, made a ridiculously inane comment about developers responding to users' requests. Really made me want to kick the guy in the nads. Does he really think users want to upgrade to faster CPUs and larger hard drives to benefit developers rather than themselves?

When MS Office 2k7 was in beta and the PR push was on for the new menu system, I read an analysis by MS of MS Office apps and their menus over the years. The space taken up by menu bars was listed as number of pixels and as a percentage of the typical screen size. The message was, although menus had grown in absolute size, the percentage of the typical screen had stayed the same. Like that was a good thing.

For the obligatory automotive analogy, would people take advantage of the improvements in engine design, lighter materials, etc. by buying large trucks rather than getting improved fuel efficiency with cars of the same size?

Nevermind.

Marketing Madness

[rueger]

Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software. By using the fast Enlightenment desktop manager (instead of heavier-duty alternatives like Gnome or KDE), the makers say it's more responsive than Vista is, even on more powerful computers.

You're taking an underpowered machine, with a non-standard desktop, OS and software, and selling it to what is likely the least tech knowledgeable market that you can find.

a) Sell crappy Linux box to unsupecting mark.
b) Mark can't figure out why it isn't like every other computer
c) Mark can't make $9.99 computer game install
d) Mark can't make MS Word document open.
e) Profit?

Ever consider that there was a reason why Wal-Mart's last cheapo Linux PC has been "out of stock" for so long? It's because they can't sell them without having them returned.

Re:Marketing Madness

[the_womble]

a) Sell crappy Linux box to unsupecting mark.

Yes,because the buyers are really going to be expecting the best hardware avaiable for $200. They will expect something that works reasonably and is good value for a bottom end price.

b) Mark can't figure out why it isn't like every other computer

Given how pretty Enlightenment looks, and given the public's liking for eye-candy, most buyers are going to think"hey, this is cool". Screenshot of this PC's default theme here.

c) Mark can't make $9.99 computer game install

$200 hardware is obviously aimed at gamers

d) Mark can't make MS Word document open.

Why not? I have never had a problem opening and MS Word document on any Linux distro I have tried, click on it in the file manager. You do not even have to install any additional software, what you need is in the default install - unlike a good many cheap Windows PCs.

e) Profit?

At that price, very likely. Margins will be very low given the volumes Wal-Mart could potentially shift they do not need to be high.

I bought one of these Wal-Mart Linux PCs

[KWTm]

I ordered a Wal-Mart Linux PC. I'm using it for a backup server at home right now.

This was back in 2002 or 2003. It was $200, only available by mail-order, and came with a CD-ROM drive and single hard disk (20GB?). I picked up a crummy CRT at the local second-hand computer store and started exploring Linux. I replaced the hard drive with a removable hard drive bracket.

It took me a while to figure out that the CD reader had subtle errors (after 3 different distributions of Linux failed to install) and replaced that too. The thing was, the smaller box (is that called mini-ITX?) would only fit the very smallest CD drives, and both my new CD RW and the removable hard drive bracket protruded out the front in a rather ugly way.

The thing came with Lindows (as it was called at the time). I tried it for 10 minutes and then replaced it with "Pink Tie" Linux, then Mandrake 8.1, then LibraNet Linux. (I tried Debian, too, but that "dselect" thing is way too cryptic.)

Looks like Wal-Mart is back with more PC's for the people. That's great. It will bring more visibility to Ubuntu, and Linux in general. And that's the point of the whole thing: to let Linux have more visibility so that manufacturers, and people in general, won't say, "Hey, we don't have to make our video player compatible with Linux because nobody uses Linux."

$240 PC at Newegg.com

[digitaldc]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883114030
Here is one of your cheapest alternatives on the market

Brand eMachines
Model W3609
Recommended Usage Home / Home Office
Processor Intel Celeron D 356(3.33GHz)
Processor Main Features 64 bit Processor
Cache Per Processor 512KB L2 Cache
Memory 512MB DDR2 533
Hard Drive 120GB SATA 7200rpm
Optical Drive 1 DVD±RW 16x Multiformat Dual-Layer Optical Drive
Graphics Intel GMA 950 Up to 224MB Shared Video Memory
Audio 6-channel (5.1) high-definition audio
Ethernet Intel 10/100Mbps Ethernet LAN
Speaker Amplified Stereo Speakers (USB-Powered)
Keyboard Standard multifunction keyboard
Mouse 2-button wheel mouse
Operating System Windows Vista Home Basic

Re:$240 PC at Newegg.com

[sootman]

Recommended Usage Home / Home Office
Processor Intel Celeron D 356(3.33GHz)
Processor Main Features 64 bit Processor
Cache Per Processor 512KB L2 Cache
Memory 512MB DDR2 533
Hard Drive 120GB SATA 7200rpm

It always kills me to read the specs on a site like Dell.com and see all these machines described as "suitable for web browsing, email..." When I went to Siggraph in 1998, PII/400s were the new hotness and all the kickass machines that ran all the 3D apps had MAYBE 16 MB video cards. Today, they make it sound like a 3 GHz machine is usable only if you're a complete simpleton and will never have more than 2 apps open at once. Unbelievable.

200 dollar sweet spot

[Danathar]

Jack Tramail of Atari and Commodore used to say that $200 is a sweet spot for consumers

"Computers for the Masses, not the classes"

Re:No, really?

[Chandon Seldon]

Wait, what?

The desktop that they're showing in the screenshots (Enlightenment + Some File Manager + Some Dock App) is as full featured as any common desktop system today, and it should be able to compete at bling as well. Going with XFCE probably would have been better-integrated, but to noob users this system will look as good as a Mac (and thus *look* better than Vista).

Re:Anyone ever heard of the manufacturer?

[AvitarX]

They should really have used Ubuntu and XFCE.

I like Enlightenment, but it is VERY different than Windows, and not completely intuitive. For example the icon bar (like a task list) defaults to being able to go under things (in Ubuntu anyway). Also, no start button and no files on the desktop.

XFCE works very close to gnome or Windows and looks great. Stuff saves to the Desktop, it has a start button and a task bar. No autoflip on screen edge (by default) no multi-view ports (by default at least). Using enlightenment almost to me sounds like designed failure. I would think a slightly sluggish Gnome or KDE would give a better impression.

I also think the biggest thing would be a lighter-weight (than Firefox) but still highly site compatible (like Firefox) web browser would help. On my system (that uses Gnome) Firefox is the biggest memmorey hog. I also have a Celeron 3.4GHz with 512 MB of ram. I installed Xubuntu, but also some Gnome and KDE apps. Firefox is using 125MB of RAM. My SWAP is at 400MB used of 800MB. I am using XFCE and as long as no super Flash site comes up things run fairly well, though there is definite lag in the Google Apps, they are functional.

I like Enlightenment, but it is just too unixy for the complete novice I think.

what?!?

[Deadplant]

"It has a 1.5 Ghz VIA C7 CPU embedded in a Mini-ITX motherboard, 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. Normally, this would simply mark it as unacceptably low-end for use with modern software."

You've got to be f-ing kidding me.
That is nonsense. the author has been talking to sales people and/or the microsoft vista team.
That is double the spec you need for XP with office-like software and broadband Internet multimedia stuff.

The latest games and vista are the only "modern software" for which those specs are inadequate.
And that is only because games can always use more power and are thus coded for the latest and greatest equipment.
(I can't explain vista)

Re:Only terrorists and hackers use Linux

[CatsupBoy]

The year of Linux on the desktop is never.

Uh... you spelled nigh wrong.