Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building a $200 Linux PC

Posted by Soulskill on from the cost-of-a-cheap-tux dept.

WesternActor writes "Computers are getting cheaper to buy every year, but there are still sometimes advantages to building them yourself. ExtremeTech has a story about how they sought out the parts for a $200 computer that (of course) runs Linux as a way of breaking the budget barrier. They even test it against a commercially available eMachines nettop to see how it compares in terms of performance. This probably isn't something everyone will want to do, but it's an interesting example of something you can do on the cheap if you put your mind to it."

4 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. This has always been a plus for Linux, so? by adosch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linux has always had the extreme flexibility to run on a wide range of processors types not to mention still get a nominal amount of performance and use out of something that is deemed 'obsolete' by Moore's Law. That's why I don't do bleeding edge hardware at home unless I have an absolute need for it (e.g. gaming, or some bloatware application that needs that type of horsepower) and it works great to be a bargain-basement shopper. Do I find this article surprising? Not at all.

  2. Re:What about atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, they spent $20 to get a system that's five to ten times faster than the Atom would be yet still be within the $200 budget. Even if they could use the diff to get another meg of memory it'd never make up for it in practice.

  3. Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the point of not pirating if you're going to violate the license anyway?

  4. Re:What about atom? by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think there's a market for a cheap Atom-based Linux box used for internet browsing, but the Athlon II X2 245 is literally at least four times faster at everything.

    Indeed, it's around 4x faster at everything, including sucking up electric power and converting it to heat.

    The atom has a TDP of 8-14 W while the Athlon II is between 25-65 W. If you let both machines run for two years, then the combined purchasing price + the running cost put the Athlon in a very unfavorable spot, especially if you don't need the processing power on a regular basis.

    If you have a good reason to get a fast, power hungry CPU, then fine, but otherwise is would be a waste. Which is what I was wondering in the article about: what's the purpose of this kind of setup? Ignoring the running cost, noise output and some other factors. They seem to have been bored.