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'd say a 1.5 star rating is actually quite generous, considering the amount of money Linux spends in PC Magazine. It probably wouldn't get a mention at all if not for the huge sums of money Microsoft spends.
In other words: move along, nothing to see here.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Look who the biggest advertiser is in PC Mag ... you know ... follow the money ...
The box does everything most people want - safe browsing on the web, email, and word processing. Throw in an extra stick of ram, and its a decent second box for a developer.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Think of the source, dudes. PC magazine does not write about linux or Macs. They write about PCs--which are implicitly Windows-based. If they did not do this, they would be pissing in their own soup and Microsoft would never talk to them again.
It's a $200 computer. Dell doesn't even sell anything that cheap, and their cheap stuff is pretty crappy. But, for $200 any computer at all is pretty good. The iPhone costs twice that much and it doesn't even come with a mouse!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
So, they nitpick and trash this PC while advertising every other (windows) PC on their page. I'm sure their sponsor's have no influence, I mean, it's America, lobbyists, er, sponsors don't control anything.
For the target audience of the magazine, the rating is mostly correct. Its not a very good system for those people.
But for grandma? Do you really trust PC Magazine to be *capable* of reviewing something the way your grandmother would see it, rather then how a full time PC user would? Its a similar problem when someone like 1up does a review of a "casual" focused game. The review is meaningless because who the game is aimed at and who the review is aimed at are completely different markets.
The only way to review this thing properly is to give it to someone in the Walmart crowd who doesn't use a PC very much now, and see how they do with it. Unfortunately, I don't know of a magazine that does that sort of review.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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?
...you get what you pay for. This was a good attempt to break out to the average consumer; live and learn.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
Last I heard, Wal-Mart's business model was to restock their stores based on demand, not based on whether some magazine recommends their products. I don't think people who shop at Wal-Mart are all that concerned about quality or performance, so much as price and 'does it work'.
The last batch sold out, so chances are they'll sell it again, and again, until demand starts to falter or until they can no longer profit from them.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Linux, WalMart, and Everex are such big sponsors of PC Mag, I figured it'd get the maximum number of stars for sure.
How serious can you take this when more than half the page is filled with advertisements for HP, Lenovo, Sony and anti-virus software? Just a little conflict of interest there, maybe?
Look at the general population at wal-mart. Most of the people there want something with a cheaper price tag over quality. Do you honestly think that these consumers are purchasing this PC with the mind set that "Oh I'm sticking it to Microsoft by not buying a Windows PC!" Hell no. They buy it because it's $200 bucks. You could load any operating system on it and people would STILL buy it.
This has nothing to do with the operating system, it's simple, it's cheap, and the consumers at wal-mart will buy it.
The majority of your PC buyers just want something cheap.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
This review isn't just nitpicky - it completely misses the point on a number of fronts. Here are a couple:
Save up for just a little longer and buy something for at least $450 that runs Windows Vista, or get the ASUS Eee PC 4G laptop.
A major selling point of this is that it is cheap and his first recommendation is buying something more than twice as expensive. Not only that, but he recommends buying a $450 system with Vista. Are there companies selling systems at that price with hardware even capable of running Vista? If so, sight unseen, I can gaurantee you that they suck. The Eee PC is a sweet little machine, in my estimation, but it is no replacement for a desktop. Whenever I see someone griping about the Eee PC it is because they are expecting it to act like a desktop and it isn't one. Also - the Eee PC doesn't answer his critique of this system not running windows and mac apps. So he is just fishing for things to pile up against the system even if they aren't consistent with one another.
The upside is that the processor consumes only 20W peak by itself, and during use, the PC did keep its overall power usage to the 20W-to-50W range.
Another nit to pick about gPC's green claims: While the VIA processor is low-power-consuming and Everex claims the gPC is fully RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) compliant, it has no Energy Star rating or EPEAT certification.
That's not a nitpick. It's stupid. The thing uses less energy than most other systems, he says so himself, so he complains that this fact is not certified. Apparently certified and using more energy is more environmentally friendly than not certified and using less energy.
You could buy this PC to use for a hardware project, such as for installing Windows Home Server or another flavor of Linux. For those purposes, however, I would recommend you just use that old Pentium III box in your closet,...
Windows home server? So now you are better off buying an underpowered Vista machine at twice the price or taking Linux off this box and replacing it with a buggy windows product. Nice. But dig up an old PIII because for some reason that's better. No explanation of how or why but the mind boggles.
The setup sheet rightly notes that, for the PC to fully function, you need a broadband Internet connection with an Ethernet cable. The picture on the setup sheet, however, points to the included modem...
The words are right, the picture is wrong. In other words the documentation doesn't exactly match with reality. I have to say that this has been true of more products that I've bought than has not been true. Anyone wanting to run a PC that is advertised as relying on the internet for full functionality over dial up, is going to be frustrated by anything they buy, no matter how powerful because dialup sucks.
He had to change the monitor resolution. That's rough. He had to install Flash and had choices that confused him. That's a curious oversight on the part of the manufacturer but hardly a show stopper.
Needless to say, 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 it's mainly a Web-based PC.
Wow - that's almost like investigative reporting. It's a web-based PC? I'd have never guessed that from all the advertising. I shouldn't get snarky I guess, but come on. He's upset because this isn't a high end desktop that can run mad and windows apps. He wants it to be a G5 but it isn't so it gets a low rating. If he rated cars only high-end sports cars would get a chance. Anything else would be under powered and without the luxuries he expects on every vehicle regardless of price.
He is right about getting what you pay for. And more is quite often better. But the slightly more difficult question is "How much is enough?" And for many people, in my experience, this cheap little machine is enough. Why should it be punished because he wants more?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From their site: BOTTOM LINE: The Everex gPC is ostensibly either a "green PC" or the "Google PC." While it mostly fills the first description (without all the certification), the second is held up in legal wrangling and lackluster implementation. The gPC is not the alternative to Windows or Mac OS X it's cracked up to be; it's very frustrating to use. It's a "green PC," but if you're expecting to do more than the basics (aka go online, chat, email, office stuff) then this isn't a PC for you -- you'll need something edging $1K because the graphics won't cut it. PROS:It's cheap. You don't have to worry about Windows viruses and malware. Available at over 600 Wal-Mart stores and online.
CONS: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. It's very cheap, because it's a Mini-ITX. It runs Linux, so forget 99% of all the problems with Windows. And if you got low-end broadband you're running through the Ethernet port anyway, so why install a modem? Plus, you got Firefox, OpenOffice, and Thunderbird. You're good to go if you're an old geezer who wants to keep in touch with the kids and don't want to pay too much (since you got that low-end DSL that's just fast enough).
The market for the gPC isn't for everyone, just folks who want to get online and not worry about getting in trouble. PC Magazine missed the point, and the 1.5 review can just be tossed out the window.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Is the grass blue today? Is the sky green today? If I didn't know better, I would almost say that--instead of being excoriated--Walmart is being defended on slashdot. Mark the date. Oh well, common enemy, strange bedfellows and all that.
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.
Stopped reading after this sentence...
"My advice to these people? Save up for just a little longer and buy something for at least $450 that runs Windows Vista..."
Did you notice how they listed that it doesn't run Mac or Windows software as a drawback? Vista doesn't run Mac, Linux, and some XP software, but you never see that listed in the reviews. To take a $200 computer and review it compared to one costing twice as much (or more), it should be obvious which one is superior.
I'm actually glad to see this getting any attention at all. A cheap do-it-yourselfer is the perfect box for a hobbyist or a beginner to get their feet wet with. Since it's not too expensive you don't have that "I don't want to ruin it" nervousness that keeps people from getting their hands dirty mucking around with a machine ten times this price.
Linux also requires users to have a little more familiarity with your hardware, so you're not just learning about how to use the system -- you're learning about what's inside, too.
On the downside, 512MB of RAM is barely enough these days; I'm sure they could have left out the speakers and gone with a full gig, unless part of their plan is to make money on these kinds of aftermarket options.
It's also very cool how they integrated the Google apps into the system, albeit without the official blessing of the big G. I guess the real question is, when are they going to put out a similar product on their own?
This is the same useless periodical that continually gives Nortron Internet Security a 4 or 5 star rating year after year. Enough said.
Before yet another post dismissing the review in its entirety is posted, there are some totally valid claims.
1. Lack of flash plugin. Yes, they totally side-stepped the legal problems, but how about a script to do the job on startup??
2. Lack of polish. I backported everex's e17 gui onto an older kubuntu and I found the same issues the reviewer did. Plug a flash drive in and watch what doesn't happen. No system tray and none was ever planned. I discovered pulseaudio though and that was worth the effort.
3. It's under-powered. Until Microsoft sells PC Magazine's editors on a "new low-power market" PC Mag will call low-power anything bad.
It should go without saying that a $299 PC is the worst possible thing to happen to PC Magazine. Everex certainly isn't going to spend money on PC Magazine's editors or buy adverts with the tiny profit margins.
As an FYI: Everex's one or two of the e17 source packages are very broken. They aren't even ubuntu quality and they would never make it into a Debian repo. I took careful notes during the whole build and I'll forward them to anyone who is interested in building the desktop.
Attention KDE developers! Add native pulseaudio support to the kde desktop ASAP!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
For either group the OS makes no difference. if the machine runs and can do these simple things, that is ok. I know that this computer does not have the advanced MS features of one click changing of the background image, or one click changing of the orientation, or other critical one click hourly tasks, but for $200 I think many people can live without those luxuries.
Of course, if one needs a second computer that runs specific MS Windows only applications, then buy an MS Windows machine. But in most cases to run such applications, one will not be able to buy the cheapest machine on the market.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Its so stupid to always look for the cheapest solutions and then say ...lets go with "Linux". If you want a GOOD functional PC with the good stuff in it - running nicely and doing what you want - you'd want a STRONG PC with the good stuff in it, it doesn't really matter if you run Linux or Vista... I can't believe they always tout the cheap pcs with Linux...like Linux where the cheap alternative, it's not the price - its what you want to do with your system, silly! A hardcore PC config will most likely kick major B*TT with Linux (I know it does with mine, and I never went for the cheap stuff as I know what the outcome will be anyway)...even if you ran windows on it. The point is - dont tout Linux with a small system - give it the major system you'd sell as a top notch windows machine - then compare - you do the math, the Linux systems have come a LONG way now - and they're as serious for the Desktop as any Windows (even better on security) would ever be, I know because I've been running both systems for over 10 years now (ok...not vista for 10 years...but windows) side by side, today I'm like using Linux 95 percent of the time...windows for the essential games only, but really...its all about c choice - not the price!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
He does make some valid points however I think it's fundamentally flawed to think any Windows user can adequately review a Linux-based system. Invariably they will try to compare it to things they already know. They will talk about how limited it is because subconsciously they miss all of the Windows apps they know and love. Nothing is in the same place they are used to. A basic frustration sets in and bias ensues. I know this is a generalization but to some degree or another its true in most every review like this you see.
What's more important to me are reviews where a PC like this is put in front of youngsters or novices. People who don't have preconceived ideas about where things should be and how they should work.
Because users are retards.
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.
Actually, they probably see the large PC-CDROM or PC-DVDROM icon in the corner, and assume it can play on their brand new PC...
Of course there will be idiots that don't know the difference, but there will also be plenty of people who know exactly what they are getting. Characterizing WalMart shoppers as universally stupid is, well, universally stupid. For tech items like cameras and mp3 players WalMart often sets the floor price by which other retailers can be judged.
The linux box they were selling was a great deal: a complete, functional, preconfigured PC that will do basically everything BUT gaming. Plenty of people understand that and the ones that want more will buy more or build their own.
What's really stupid is the tendency to judge products by an unattainable ideal. You can't buy a PC for $199 that is a screaming fast, green gaming machine that runs linux, windows or anything else. It is what it is - buy it if you want it, if not buy something else.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
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.
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 read TFA. Are all the negative points it brought up real or fair? Of course not. For one thing, I don't like how the author criticizes gPC for not preinstalling the flash player. I believe that was due to licensing limitations.
On the other hand, I see very valid criticism. For instance, according to TFA, gPC defaults to 1280x800, and will revert back to it after rebooting even if the user manually sets it to 1280x1024. I think that's something inexcusable - defaulting to an inordinary screen resolution, and somehow mysteriously insisting on it.
My point is - not a novel one at that - if people truly want Linux to be adopted more widely, they should learn not to take criticism the wrong way.
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
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.
Another little tidbit ... Windows Vista, the OS, costs as much as this whole computer. Add Microsoft Office 2007 and you have spent double the price of this machine and all the Linux software you want. And you don't even have a computer yet.
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.
The comments on Walmart's site were rather interesting. Many people gave this a five star rating, but those people also mentioned that they knew Linux, were upgrading the hardware on this computer, and seemed to be very tech savvy.
Then there were the one star raters. These people talked about how cheap the PC was, and couldn't understand why it couldn't run their other software. They found the desktop confusing and the programs it came with overly complex.
It appears that this was a thrown together piece of cheap hardware. However, those who were tech savvy viewed this as a bargain of computer parts. A little tweaking -- better keyboard, more memory, more diskspace, etc., and you had a fairly cheap Linux machine. The rest were typical computer customers who bought it because it was only $200. They found it sloppily put together, cheap and unusable components, and a confusing OS. These people didn't have the time, energy, nor technical skills to tweak this computer to make it usable.
This computer was an interesting experiment, and we'll see many more in the years to come. There's no way companies can sell $200 computers while buying a Windows license. Something is going have to give. You're going to see a lot more Linux computers for the masses before the end of next year. Someone is going to get it right.
You're saying that people who spend hundreds of dollars for a machine to play a game that costs sixty dollars and is actually digital crack aren't retards?
I will grant you that Guitar Hero is pretty fucking cool. And I admit to being addicted to Quake way back in the last century. And Road Rash. And...
Oh hell I'm a retard.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"Save up for just a little longer and buy something for at least $450 that runs Windows Vista..." VISTA!?!? Vista is HORRIBLE. I'm one of the lucky few that had the smarts to downgrade back to XP. I can't believe this writer still has a job.
All is prevelant in the world...
And the users that know what that symbol means, probably won't buy it.
How many times has Mom, Grandma, Uncle John bought that game "becuse it looked so fun" and then you had to explain to them you had a {Wii,360,PS3,DS} and the game they bought you was for the {Wii,360,PS3,DS}. I've heard stories of people getting offended at their Christmas present being returned. Even if it was just exchanged for THE EXACT SAME GAME on the popper platform.
Please, describe to me how you're going to explain to Grandma that Brain Age won't work on your 360 and you have to return it.
What this system really lacks, from what I have read, (I haven't really bought or even used one.) is synaptic, and a quick link to a Debian repository. Then the Author could get whatever he wanted. Firefox/Iceweasel, games like Freeciv, Westnoth, whatever. He could get his fill of ofice type apps too.
For the specs I've seen Abi or Koffice might be a better choice than Open Office, the specs for the machine are minimal. If I had one of these machines the first thing I'd do is add memory. It's still slow, but would at least run some interesting stuff.
Still, it is a nice first stab at a decent low end home machine. I can remember being happy with my old K6 300. This thing has better specs than that. You just have to be choosy in what you run.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
moral of the story: if you are a linux noob, you might not enjoy a linux machine because its not windows
The author's words are so profound
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
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.
EXACTLY. People always comment on how much friendlier Windows is.... I just don't see it. If it was so damn friendly, then why do I still have to keep answering questions about it from my family and friends? And seriously, at what point are we going to be noob-free? Teenagers these days haven't known when computers didn't exist. My 2.5 year old daughter can use the mouse and play her Reader Rabbit games on the PC pretty well, whereas an elderly neighbor had no clue how to use a mouse - she was hovering her hand over it and moving her hand around. Quite a clash of generations. I guess we'll always have noobs in a sense, but they won't be as prevalent.
I've been using Linux on my home machine since RedHat 6.1, and the advances it has made on the desktop are nothing short of amazing. But there are still things I don't know, and things that frustrate the hell out of me with it. But I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm more comfortable with Windows than Mac, those things just do not mesh well with my brain. It will be interesting in 10, 20 years to see how things have progressed. Hopefully I'll be able to keep up.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
He claims it's too slow "even in the out-of-box state when a PC is expected to be at its fastest." Which just shows an incredible Windows bias. Someone should hit him several times with a clue stick screaming "Real operating systems don't slow down just because you use them or install software!"
That said, I have basically this machine (built from scratch). I use it for a file server. I might consider something like this as a terminal in my kitchen, but I'd never suggest anyone use one as their main machine unless they really can't afford something more.
That's only $133 per star. Sounds pretty good to me.
-Dave
I have never used Linux before, but I did use Unix on Sun workstations for a little while in the 90's. I own about 10 windows based computers.
....
Here are my comments on the Walmart computer.
Good
- Cheap! $200.
- Very Quiet!
- Seems stable.
- Comes with lots of installed software: Word Processor, Photo Editing, Spreadsheet, a PDF viewer, FireFox,
Bad
- Somewhat slow (which I had expected.)
- I think that it will take me a long time to get used to GOS (Linux?), but my kids are doing fine with it. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to change the screen resolution. There are icons that I can't seem to get rid of, but I haven't tried too much.
- The little documentation that came with the machine was not 100% correct.
Overall: Seems like a great cheap computer for the kids and it may even be good for surfing the Web and learning about computers in general.
"- stop switching kernel API's around every few releases, release a binary driver spec and stick to it"
Too bad it probably will not happen.
For some reason people seem to think that this will make companies release FOSS drivers. The fact that nVidia and ATI are still releasing closed drivers doesn't seem to matter to them.
Then you have the statment that they don't have to write FOSS drivers they can just release the specs and the FOSS community will write better drivers than they can.
Well ATI is releasing the specks for some of it's GPUs so I guess we will see.
"- get rid of all those duplicate halfbaked projects and put all the effort into a single set of office software.
What use is to have 3 different versions of everything, with every forked and me-too project the chance of large scale end-user adoption for linux goes down."
That can not be done. How do you tell someone that they can not write a program? Why would you want to?
I figure choice is a good thing. And since most of these projects are free what right do I have to tell them what to do?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.