Slashdot Mirror
PC Mag Slams Cheap Wal-Mart Linux Desktop
An anonymous reader writes "PC Magazine reviews the $200 Linux desktop wonder sold by Wal-Mart. This desktop sold out quickly and has been cited as proof that consumers are tired of the Windows tax and ready for Linux. Not so according to PC Magazine, which gave the gPC a 1.5 star rating." Previous discussions we've had about system reviews were realistic but not quite so harsh; is this just nitpicking or is the 'shiny' starting to wear off of the cheap Linux PC concept?
I went and skimmed. Half a gig of RAM, 80G h/d... and it runs "Ubuntu, but not speedily"?
Pardon me, I'm typing this running on an AMD Sempron 2600, 512M RAM, and running SuSE 10.3, and it runs quite nicely, thankyouverymuch. In fact, it seems faster than the SuSE 10.0 I was running till earlier this week.
And I was running SuSE 10.0 on an old 900 MHZ machine in the first part of '06, and it ran just fine.
I'd say that evidence shows PC Mag's review for what it is: bs.
mark
Less the $200 in hardware, and an OS that never saw light before. A couple of things about the OS are less then optimal, and it runs slower then the Alienware desktop running XP they reveiwed last week. Gee, isn't that the same as saying it is just like any computer running Vista?
I thought this was a pretty good review. While some of it may not matter, I think their points about installing Flash and the inconsistencies in the OS (like the Google search on the desktop) are very insightful, and the kind of thing that would drive Grandma mad. Same think with the broadband/modem bit (where the modem doesn't even work).
It sounds like a weak piece of hardware (mostly the CPU, a used P3 or P4 would do you better, probably) with a sad OS. If you bought the thing and then immediately put Ubuntu or Debian on, it sounds like it might make 2.5 or 3 stars. Their point of saving up an extra $100 to get a much better box seems like quite sound advice to me.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It comes with a modem that doesn't work in Linux. Flash isn't installed by default.
Of course, the reviewer is also a moron for complaining that it doesn't support programs written for other operating systems. It certainly does support Windows apps much better than Windows supports Linux apps.
Doesn't really qualify as unbiased reporting.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
To be fair to the reviewer, he is actually fairly spot-on, if not a little jumpy in his recommendations.
To clear it up, he says if you want a new computer, save up a bit more. If you want something that performs as good as this computer of better, go dig up an old PIII. If you bought this computer and are looking for something to do with it, set it up as a file server or something (by putting Windows Home Server on it). He also recommended that if you want Linux, to just install the regular Ubuntu instead of this weird gOS.
He had a lot of recommendations, and it takes actually reading the article, and not just skimming it to see that all of his recommendations make sense. Sadly, this is Slashdot and you'll get modded to +5.
Yes, the oversight of a flash player is curious. Very curious since the computer touts itself about allowing you to watch YouTube. But it doesn't out of the box, and the installer doesn't really go to the right location! It goes to the generic macromedia flash page instead of popping up something else. It is really inexcusable to not have a "big feature" that you tout not working out of the box.
The fact that lots of companies get the documentation wrong doesn't mean that it's ok to get the documentation wrong....something as simple as plugging in an ethernet cable should be right. Period. End of story.
ok, so he put in a disclaimer that you can't run Windows programs. Given the ultra-cheap nature of this computer, it's something that any competent reviewer would put in the article "hey guys, just in case you didn't know, this Linux thing can't run Windows or Mac programs." Anyone who does their diligence would put that in their review. It's not a knock, just a fact that quite a few people might not know.
Yea, so he recommends a more expensive option. That's because his review concludes, that spending $200 and getting this PC is not a good value. But, for $150 more you could get something that is a good value. Maybe not helpful for someone who only has $200, but it lets you know where he stands.
Now to be fair to the guy, he spends most of his time complaining about how the gOS is just a messed up version of Ubuntu with all this random marketing crap to make it sound like a google computer, and to put all this weird, crazy marketing stuff on it. Basically, he complains that you get Ubuntu as designed by marketing-droids. A very useful point of knowledge -- that the first Linux PC offering was bastardized by marketing people, and that gOS is not a good representation of what Linux can do!
I only got the "It's not something most beginners would want to do" undertones, not quite what you got from it...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Heck right now pulling up the dell outlet I see a PC for $209 with 1GB memory, 250GB Hard Drive, X2 proc, CDRW/DVD and a year warranty, and yes windows vista.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
I think the big problem with these Linux machines being sold by the likes of Walmart and others is that they're cheap. They put the cheapest hardware they can find to barely run Linux, and throw it on a shelf. It's great from their perspective because they're going to sell to the people that don't know any better. They can get away with the cheap hardware because Linux is generally more efficient and is able to run on hardware with lower specs than what Windows is going to require.
I think that, in the long run, this is only going to hurt the credibility of Linux. Many people are going to start to use this great thing called Linux, and they're going to hate it. They'll compare their brand-new laptop from the Walmart clearance isle with the brand-new laptop their brother or cousin or dad or son bought from Dell or Apple. Their systems run Windows or Mac OS X, and they're FAST. Very FAST. And easier to use (seemingly).
Their next purchase will be something they can't necessarily afford so they'll pay Dell or Apple an additional 29.875% interest on it for the next 7 years.
Thats all fine and dandy (and moderator friendly), but really bears no relation to what I said.
What I said is that PC Magazine isn't capable of reviewing this PC in the context of how a grandmother is going to use it. I didn't say anything about Linux being hard to use or Windows being easy to use. I didn't say anything about admin tasks at all. In fact, I hardly said anything about the computer in question.
My point is that if you want a fair review of how well this computer does what its intended to do, you need to bring in the correct audience and get THEM to review it.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I read the PC review with an open mind because I was curious about how a $200 machine would be. For a 1.5 star rating, I was expecting the review to say things like 'it died' or 'refused to work' or 'it was impossible to install the software that was provided' or something. Instead, the PC criticisms were: 1) "slapped together" (what does that mean), 2)"low-power, relatively low-performing VIA C7-D processor", 3)"the gOS team is working on a modem driver" 4)"the gPC defaulted to 1,280-by-800 resolution", 5)"it has no Energy Star rating" (but used only 50 watts), 6)"programs written for Mac OS X or Windows that you can buy online or in a retail store won't work on the Linux-based gPC", 7)"It would've been nice if the folks at Everex or gOS preinstalled Flash support".
The article summarizes the above with: "In the end, though, it has so many shortcomings I would have a problem recommending it to anyone." With the possible exception of 2), these are all minor nitpicks and hardly justify a 1.5 star rating. Based on the author's own description of his use of the machine, it should have been given a 3-star rating and that would be marked down from 4-stars because of the low-power processor. PC Magazine feeds on Microsoft to survive and this article shows that.
It's not only a $200.00 pc but it's a MINI ITX pc. makes it awesome for hacking. I cant buy those motherboard for that cheap (if you factor in ram and HDD value)
I have purchased 4 of them to strip the motherboard out and use in other projects. they make perfect car Media center PC's. Install mediaportal and they work great. Hell if I sell the rest of the parts off (I get $15.00 each for the cases to a local PC shop) I end up getting the parts I want at a big discount.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I had an absolutely great experience with Ubuntu installation. I popped in the CD, booted up into it, clicked install, and it just worked. The only thing that I didn't have was some of the latest drivers for my graphics card, but then again, Windows generally doesn't either.
I do agree that the average joe should not be installing an operating system anywhere, but ubuntu's installer system for drivers works with about as many steps as Windows does, so, even though its different, I wouldn't say that it was "more daunting". If anything, Ubuntu's LiveCD approach to an OS installation is nicer because you can surf and answer installation questions while you are installing the OS. I think that's pretty damned slick.
Really, the central problem with the PC, according to the article, was that it didn't have Flash preloaded, and it can't run Windows applications. The first is a stupid problem correctable by the hardware integrator. I think if you plink down a few bucks, get the codecs licenced, get flash licensed, you can have a PC that has everything you need and is ready to go, out of the box, running Linux, that will work fine for surfing, email and a bit word processing. As for not being able to run Windows Apps, any more, I don't think consumers have a problem understanding multiple formats. After all, they know the difference between XBOX 360 and Playstation 3! Why should it be any different for PCs?
Windows compatibility is a non-issue.
In fact, I would even argue that Office compatibility is a non-issue. People use Office to make documents for themselves, and then, they use those documents and throw them away.
This is my sig.
I got the kids one for Xmas.
.05 review:
My
gOS sucks. I was about 2 minutes into things and wanted to remove some of the icons from the 'dock'. I right-clicked - hit 'delete' (or maybe remove) and the whole dock disappeared! Ooops. A few more unintuitive things like that and I ended up formatting it and installed Edubuntu. Installing Flash took about 1 minute. Added a few other things TuxPaint, etc and was ready to go.
Kids are happy!
In the initial paragraph Joel made the point that the "gPC's energy-efficient status is to some extent smoke and mirrors" and I fully expected to see a serious explanation for this conclusion as I know from my own experience that the Via Cx processors are amazingly low power units.
.tar.gz and .rpm format, to install a firefox plugin when in fact he installed the plugin through firefox as would a Windows or OSX user.
However, when we get to the rant about power consumption of the system it turns out that the system consumed a peak of 20W to 50W compared to 50W at idle for an HP low power system and 500W to 1KW for some gaming systems. In fact, the only mention of any "nit pick" which might suggest reasoning for the smoke and mirrors conclusion is due to the fact that "it has no Energy Star rating or EPEAT certification". So the box as tested uses less power than any other system he has tested and yet he calls the energy efficiency status smoke and mirrors because it doesn't have a sticker? Perhaps its this review that is smoke and mirrors.
And if that were not enough he knocks the PC for not running Windows apps when he already acknowledged that the purpose of the box was for basic web surfing. And he complains that a user will require "a lot of time to learn the basic nuances of Linux", I'm assuming because of the comment about viewing the Flash plugin downloads in
Joel did have a couple of valid points, i.e. the documentation explaining the requirement for broadband internet and an ethernet cable but showing a modem and modem cable in the diagrams, or the idea of reusing an older PC by installing linux as a greener solution. But overall what could have been a solid review of the gPC is overwhelmed by inaccuracies, expectations outside the specifications of the $200 box, and exagerated claims of failure to meet claimed specifications.
I'd give this review 1.5 stars but then I'd say its really not even worth mentioning.
As one who has worked both with Linux and Windows extensively and watched both mature in their resective markets.
There seem to be three points here that are largely missed by the review.
1) the $200 puts a very low price floor on a rather relatively functional PC (browsing, networking, etc) compared to higher prices systems in the $400-$800 ranage. The features will now no doubt a) smooth out some of the kinks and set a baseline for improvements at this $200 price.
2) At $200 a large market can afford one to do the mundane computing tasks that are typically take up about 80% of most PC users time (few PC users actually spend their cpu cycles actually "computing" in a strict sense).
3) with such a large potential MASS market (from THE MASS marketer) Linux is being tried and becoming comfortable to a much wider base of users, which puts considerable pressure on other OS makers who expect to make a profit in the "commoditized segment" of the PC business.
As a Vista user, this is a win for me as it puts pressure for the first time on Microsoft to really make their OS perform with a minimum of penalties both in terms of cost and performance, lest they be replaced by cheaper, as nearly functional equivalents.
As a Linux user, this is a win for me because it puts additional pressure on Linux software developers to make their software run in more standardly configurable modules to conform to the dimensions of an increasingly larger Linux market, so that installation, maintenance, and peformance tuning become ever easier.
The nice thing is that if you don't like it, you don't have to buy one, but at $200 (sans monitor) a lot of people, especially younger, poorer users with limited budgets will.
Oh I agree on the interface parts. I don't think a nicely configured Linux machine is any harder to actually use than a Windows or Mac machine (though some tasks like software installation can be harder, but many home users don't install software and just use what came with the computer, and many office workers aren't allowed to install stuff anyways).
:).
My main complaint with Linux is that it, as you quite aptly describe, feels "brittle" in a lot of aspects. Sure the system is more secure, and arguably faster, but little things crash quite frequently. So many of the apps behave in a "quirky" manner. Buttons that have a mouseover will have the mouseover effect get stuck sometimes for example. Desktop backgrounds stick. Little errors will appear during the bootup process of a default install that even though they don't affect the system, will take forever to "fix" (this has been more a problem on Red Hat installs than Ubuntu).
It's just those things that degrade my Linux experience. That's not to say I don't use it still. I've actually been using Linux on at least 1 computer since 1997-98 or so, and I admin several Linux servers here at work. Started with Debian (used for a few days only), then Mandrake for a few years, then Slackware for a few more years, then Gentoo for the last few, and lately I've been playing around with Ubuntu. There has been vast improvement, and I still can get things done on any of them personally, but they're all still a bit shakey for me to say, setup on my parent's computer. I wouldn't hesitate to put them in front of a Mac though, not because it's easier to use, but because the system just "behaves" better. Unfortunately they are stubborn about buying new computers and they basically just run hand-me-downs that I give them, so they are currently on Windows and though it's easy to use and the OS itself works, the constant trips out there to get it going again after they've bogged it down with spyware are annoying. I have a Ghost image that I can just slap back across the main partition when they hose it up (data files are on a seperate partition), but it's still annoying
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I should probably add that this is a machine that was installed about a year ago, but I feel that that should not matter, it performs well enough and I really don't see the point in fixing that which isn't broken.
So you tried to install a new application into a system that needed updates? What happens if you try to install a codec on win32 that wants WMP11 and you only have WMP9? Or an ActiveX control that doesn't work with IE6? How about some C# app that wants not only the runtime but the *newer* dotNet crap? Do you complain that you have to install a bunch of software there, or are you just picking on something silly?
Don't get me wrong; I agree that the Linux community needs to get some of this stuff straightened up right away, but to say that it's a Linux-only or FOSS-only thing is unfair at best.
The review made some interesting points, if you read between the lines.
"gPC" = "GooglePC"? Where did this come from? WalMart didn't advertise that, did they? This little tidbit seems completely made up by everyone else. I was *never* under the impression that this was a Google anything.
The need to install a Flash module will introduce many/most gPC users to the always helpful advice from the Friendly Linux Community. Many forums will be awash with requests from gPC users about "how do I...", and responses ranging from "Go back to Winblows, dum$%^", "RTFM, %&&**"!, and " I wish them luck, thick skin, and a bag full of Tums.
Not to mention that the modem probably won't work ever. Ubuntu et al aren't motivated to make Winmodems work, modem are pus, dialup is inadequate for maintenance, blablabla.
But, on a positive note, I'm hoping the lusers do return these gPCs for refunds. I'll snarf one up if it shows up in clearance. Kinda cheap for for a basic little Samba/MythTV server, certainly a better than a Windows Home Server, no?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Then they should have put in a script that runs the first time the machine is loaded, offering to download and install Flash Player. Or, even better, pay the (I'm sure minimal) amount of money to Adobe to allow it to be pre-installed. Hell, they touted YouTube as a featured use of the computer: Flash is kind of necessary to visit YouTube! To leave a Linux neophyte to install a tar.gz from Adobe, or to let him find "flashplayer-nonfree" from the repositories, is a bit of failure here!
I'm generally in agreement with you: the reviewer's points weren't necessarily all motivated by PC Mag's dependence of MS advertising money. But don't let Everex off the hook for their poor handling of the Flash issue. This really is one of the things that will sour a user's experience right away with Linux.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Every other OS "handles" it in one of the following ways:
In other words, what you're calling "Linux's problem" is not a problem at all; in fact, it's the most optimal solution! (Making the libraries perfect to begin with is obviously better, but also impossible, so that doesn't count.)
Now, the only genuine problem is when such library updates fail or are incompatible, and cause breakage of the app. However, in a properly-maintained distro that's not supposed to happen, so it shouldn't be a problem novice users (who should only be using the stable tree of a conservative distro) ever experience.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Having used both Ubuntu and gOS, I'd maintain that Ubuntu is far easier to use than gOS, simply because gOS is insanely buggy at this point. It baffles me that they decided to go with their own flaky Enlightenment-based desktop. It's hard enough selling Linux to the masses, so why introduce their own alpha-quality software into the mix?
As far as Gnome's usability versus Windows's usability, I teach community college physics labs in a room with a mix of Ubuntu and Windows machines. My students don't seem to have any problems with Gnome. Some of them don't even realize it's not Windows. There are serious usability problems when they try to make graphs with OpenOffice; some of these are problems specific to OOo, and others are just copies of bad design choices in MS Office.
Find free books.
To say it all, clearly the guy is trying to sell Vista for Microsoft. He really has no valid complaint, but since PC mag makes money from Microsoft for Vista advertising his review of the product (which has gotten very good reviews all around) he's dumping on it.
I'd say he has no leg to stand on. I wouldn't doubt that he simply made up a list of what was wrong from what he read, glanced at the box, and then published his list.
He is selling Vista for Microsoft, he's not writing reviews. His words are baseless, they have little value, other reviews show he's off the mark. He forgets that we all know that a $199 computer wasn't meant for high end use. This product performs. It is sweet. The software is more than magic. He's just griping because it is a huge seller, very popular, and it has linux instead of Vista.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Once I finally started refusing outright to "do windows", even for friends and family, it was really something to see how quickly most of my little social circle switched to Mac or linux. The moral of the story? When people say they "already know how to use windows" what they really mean is that the friends they use to keep their system running (at zero cost to them) only know windows.
Caveat Utilitor
Here's my experience with Ubuntu 7.10. The install was GREAT! On my mom's PC, one built for WinME, with a total of 640MB RAM, the install took less time than a WinXP install.
My experience afterwards was less than thrilling. I tout Ubuntu, and Linux, as a great system for people who want to do most things except gaming. Even gaming works with a little understanding of Wine.
Unfortunately, most web sites are using Flash 9, and I have had nothing but complete lock-ups with Ubuntu and Adobe's flash player installed. The mouse would move, but that was it, no keyboard response. Even Windows, for all of its problems, rarely locks up the keyboard without first locking the mouse.
Another issue that exacerbated the issue was their golf GPS device that works only on Windows. For a guy like me, who would like to get away from crappy OS and security design and paying the MS tax, this was nothing but frustrating and annoying to the nth degree. I suppose I could have tried getting the device to work in Wine, but that the Flash 9 issue caused me to reload Windows on the thing.
I do need to spend more time in Linux myself so that I can better support others using it. This has been a long process, though. (Mostly trying to get my Mythbox up and running... and they've taken away the biggest advantage it had, it's own free programming guide via http interface.)
I didn't bother to read the whole review when I see THIS nonsense:
"Ethernet "Internet Connection Required." Modem is nonfunctional (for now). 1,280-by-800 resolution forced by internal graphics. Adobe Flash installation can be confusing for a novice. Google search window goes to WebRunner, not the expected Firefox. Programs written for Mac or Windows will not run."
Obviously if you're buying a box that requires Google software, you need a NIC and an Internet connection. Nobody ever said this was a standalone box. And almost nobody buys a standalone box these days anyway. A non-issue.
Since 60% of more of people in the US have broadband, the modem is irrelevant. Sure, it would be better if it functioned out of the box for the small number of people who don't have broadband - and such people are probably the only ones who'd buy a $200 box for price reasons - but obviously the designers went for some el-cheapo WinModem crap to lower the cost without considering the lack of support. Not a big deal considering the price.
Flash installation is confusing for any Linux distro for a novice. No news here. Not really a deal killer given the price, again.
The Google Search design appears to be stupid, big deal. Again, hardly a deal killer given the price.
But the killer phrase: "Programs written for Mac or Windows will not run."
DUH! No shit, Dick Tracy! It's fucking LINUX, you MORONS!
This is obviously written by the Windows PC reviewer, not some unbiased reviewer.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!