Slashdot Mirror


Building a $200 Linux PC

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."

56 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. What about atom? by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the price they paid for CPU+mobo they could have got a mobo with an Atom CPU soldered in. That socket doesn't come for free and, after all, when was the last time you had a CPU upgrade? By the time you want more performance you will most likely get a whole new system.

    1. Re:What about atom? by FreonTrip · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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. The prices for dual Atom-based boards are also a little bit high for what you get, so from a value proposition what they've done makes sense.

      For what it's worth, I upgraded my CPU about two months ago - from a 2.6 GHz Athlon64 X2 to a 3 GHz Athlon II X2 - and it's been decently peppy. More importantly, it let me take the old CPU and pop it into a cheap Linux box of my own. :)

    2. Re:What about atom? by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I somewhat agree, however the performance difference is massive between an Athalon and an Atom. For a fully featured computer, you really want a proper processor.

      I've looked down both paths a lot in the past, and you pay for flexibility. That being said, it's about the same price, so why not go with a decent processor?

    3. 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.

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

      Newer Atoms fully support x86_64, but will not be quick.

    5. Re:What about atom? by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All the times I really wanted an upgrade (about every 3-4 years) the new CPUs needed a new mobo, as the slots of the new ones where different. In the end a new system was just easier then to hod on to the old outdated hardware. At least then I would have a complete system to give away.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:What about atom? by BagOBones · · Score: 2, Informative

      ATOM processors are VERY slow compared to the dual Core they chose, unless you pair the ATOM with an integrated GPU on an ION board you would easily go over budget trying to cram in a GPU.. Then you are also stuck trying to use GPU accelerated applications or you suffer horrid performance for multi-media..

      Other than physical size they system they built vastly out performs a ATOM solution.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    7. Re:What about atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's ATHLON, damnit! ATHLON! Not "Athalon".

    8. Re:What about atom? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Were you only upgrading with Intel processors?

      The AMD AM3 processors are backwards compatible with AM2/AM2+ sockets and AM2+ processors are backwards compatible with AM2 sockets.

      AM2 came out in May, 2006.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    9. Re:What about atom? by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've got one of these Atom 330's too. 4GB RAM (can only use 3.5GB though... Meh) Anyway, do you use Windows or Linux. I used it for a while as a primary desktop running Ubuntu 9.04 (I think, it was around September 2009, so it sounds correct). It was unbearably slow... Slower that many dumpster-sourced machines I've used and I'm a proud dumpster diver. My brother currently uses it, but I dumped XP on it. No speed complaints at all. I think the NVidia driver for Linux was really bad for the ION GeForce 9400M that was included.

      Compared to a Atom D410 based motherboard (Intel D410PT), I used for building a new desktop for my mother in law. Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (was out by then) runs beautifully on it and the thing is just a single-core machine. Including DVD-RW, 250GB HD, 2GB RAM and a very sweet design case (only thing my MiL cared about) it came in around 250€.

      I'll be getting back my Atom 330 system soon, as I found a nice laptop in the dumpster for my brother (P-IV Mobile 1.6GHz) and he'll get that instead. Comes with a Windows XP Pro license too. ;-) So, if you run Linux on you Atom 330, I'll be glad to hear what you did to get it running decently.

      Back a few years, I did give me the same challenge....Or at least similar: 500€ If I could do it, my I'd build my sister a new PC and gift it to her. I did manage. The machine still works, but she now uses a Core2Duo desktop I found at a liquidation sale (store got bankrupt). I offered 300€ for all their computer hardware and this included that fully working E6600-based machine. Sweet :-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    10. Re:What about atom? by ZosX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why? Dual core cpus give a quite noticeable increase in system responsiveness. Even if you are only writing e-mail or browsing the web. Sure mozilla isn't going to run any faster (actually with multi-threading this is changing too), but how windows (or linux in this case) responds to you will be certainly improved.

    11. Re:What about atom? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem with upgrading just the cpu is that you're throwing out a cpu. Most people will upgrade both the cpu and motherboard, and keep the old ones as a spare, or make them into a headless file server, or give away the whole thing.

      Also, most people would be better off buying a cheap dual-core laptop $479 - 3 gig ram, dual core, 320 gig hd), refusing the MS install (-$55) and getting a refund on Windows, and they also won't have to buy a monitor (-$100), keyboard and mouse (-$25) mouse, ups (-$40), or wireless networking to steal wifi since they're so cheap ($25). So, laptop $479-$245=$234 vs their machine ($192) = $42 (and you don't have to pay shipping on the laptop or assemple it), for twice the hd space and 3x the ram - or you can sell the 2 gigs of ram to someone else and you're ahead of the game.

    12. Re:What about atom? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

          In skimming the article, they wanted to have flexibility to upgrade. You could go from something like an 2.9Ghz Athlon II x2 (which they used), to a 3.2Ghz Phenom II x6 That's a pretty decent upgrade.

          I built my new desktop for Christmas (subsidized by friends and family as their presents to me). I went with an Asus motherboard with a AM3 socket, and an Athlon II x4. I actually intended to grab a Phenom II x4, but grabbed the wrong one. Oops. In some quick digging online, before taking a drive back to the store, it seems this CPU is can be overclocked to be rather comparable to the Phenom II x4, except it saved $100. I've been very happy with it, but will buy a good Phenom II eventually, as prices come down.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:What about atom? by maugle · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, AMD's AM3 processors are potentially backwards compatible with AM2/AM2+ sockets and AM2+ processors are potentially backwards compatible with AM2 sockets. Getting a newer processor to work in an older motherboard may require the motherboard vendor to release an updated BIOS, and they might not do that.

      I found this out the hard way.
      Fuck you, Gigabyte.

    14. Re:What about atom? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah, no one ever accomplished those simple tasks before multicore processors were available.

          </sarcasm>

          Really, if they wanted a basic machine, as they indicated, they'd go with the cheapest processor, 128Mb RAM, etc, etc. You can set up most Linux distros to work in very tight constraints, and going with the slowest cheapest processor available new, and the smallest stick of ram available, may have come out cheaper.

          Quite a while ago, when 133Mhz Pentiums were the norm, I was looking at an old machine that someone had given to me. It was an old 386 server. I was pondering "what will I do with this piece of shit", and finally put Linux on it and took it out for a test drive. It was pathetically slow, but it did the bare minimum that he specified. I didn't use it for much, since I had a blazing fast 200Mhz machine for my normal use. Who'd ever need anything faster. :) Eventually, it made it's way to the dumpster.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:What about atom? by Cylix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My last rig was an AM2 system and it's a bit simplified to say that you need to only upgrade the processor.

      The only time in my life in which I have purposefully upgraded the processes was when I used the planned obsolesce due to budget algorithm. This algorithm works on the basis of monetary limitations which directly limit the capabilities of the equipment available. ie, I could not afford the shiniest of the shiny.

      The general philosophy was to build a new system with something borrowed, something stolen and then some things new. Using the planned obsolesce algorithm I would under spec the processor to something very affordable.

      This meant I was on a purpose set upgrade cycle of 4-6 months. It was hoped that during this time I could accomplish two things. My wallet would grow over time and through sheer of will I would force market prices to fall. Invariably, within 4 - 6 months prices would dramatically shift and I could upgrade my rig to it's full potential.

      Since those dark times my build strategy has changed and I usually just build the rig as I wish. This means that generally upgrading the processor will not yield that much performance. Even worse is that purchasing a new processor that has greater support for faster memory and newer board designs means I would under utilize it's capabilities. In essence, it's a bit wasteful to purchase just a processor because there is more under the hood then simply cycles.

      There are other areas to eek out performance or substantially increase beyond the proc. There are bus speeds, memory speeds and even faster IO ports. To the extent that one waits to upgrade the divide usually widens proportionally. Sometimes they even make a fancy new DMA channel and slap on a new name.

      So yes, while I could have upgraded my AM2 system to an AM3 there were substantial improvements in the design. Most notably in my case were memory speeds had doubled from my installed module. There were several other improvements, but let us just say things had improved.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    16. Re:What about atom? by cynyr · · Score: 2, Informative

      why's that? dual core is nice even for that, so that you can run a flash app(farmville) and skype at the same time. simply unloading system processes to the second core is a huge gain in the way the system feels.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    17. Re:What about atom? by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

      I should also note that I had substantial issues upgrading my AM2 system. I purchased a new quad core Intel proc. I had substantial issues lining up the pins and when the dremel failed to produce favorable results I went to see the local computer shop.

      They were completely horrified and helped educate me on some changes in the world. Eventually, they sent me home with a brand new 200 watt power supply and serial mouse.

      When that failed to work I decided to go to radio shack (the shack!) and see if they could get me on the right track.

      They were completely horrified at both the previous shop and the things I had done. Eventually, they too sent me home with a brand new cell phone and a subscription to subscription to satellite tv service. They said to ask the sat installer for assistance when he comes out next week.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    18. Re:What about atom? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Have you used a 133MHz Pentium recently? I tried. Firefox 3.5 took 30 seconds to come up. Stellarium took 5 minutes(!) and when it was at last running, it was so slow it was unusable. The frame rate was something like 0.25 frames per second. How ever did we play Doom on a 486?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    19. 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.

    20. Re:What about atom? by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Depends on where you live though and such. For a college student this is a pretty great deal because electricity is free, in many other places if you pay rent you get free electricity. For a lot of the unemployed, they can't afford to spend a bit more for less at the moment because they simply don't have the cash, on the other hand the electricity costs will come when they have a job to pay for it, etc.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    21. Re:What about atom? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only because people are lazy. Get out your camcorder, make a video of you refusing the agreement, and installing linux, and tell microsoft you want your money back. What's the big deal?

      Or if you want to get more than Microsoft will refund, find someone who wants a legit version, and do a dd if=/dev/whatever_windows_partition of=/their_bare_hard_drive-partition#2, and give them the license sticker.

      Even simpler, sell them the original hard drive with the install files on it, and use the money to buy yourself an even bigger drive for your laptop (and this way Microsoft can't even try to claim that it's tied to the hardware - the hardware it was on went with the OS). A 320gig laptop hard drive with a valid new windows license should net you enough to buy a 500gig to 640 gig laptop hard drive.

    22. Re:What about atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You overstate the power difference (by omitting an actual calculation). If we use an overblown assumption of, say, 10 hours a day at max load, and round up a bit to say the athlon uses 60 watts more than the atom... 60 * 10 * 366 * 2 = 439.2 kwh. At 10 cents per kwh that'd be about $44 difference in power use over two years.

      In practice, the *total* power that CPU would use over two years is probably less than that. (Very rarely is a desktop computer normally used at max load; for example, I'm running a chip that maxes out at 65w right now, and I'm running several things at once - IRC, messenger, torrents, music, firefox with a bunch of open tabs and using plugins, and I'm floating around 9-12%. Not even gaming or watching hi def video pushes me to 100%). And if you set your computer to go to sleep if it's idle for long - which is the default now in win7, I think - you can leave it "on" all day but it'll spend all night only drawing 2-4 watts to keep RAM refreshed.

      In that light, a 25-65 watt chip in a desktop is an odd thing to complain about. Complain about the CPUs that pull 95-125 watts, or the video cards that pull 45-180 watts. And if we were truly serious about the opposite extreme, we'd all be running Arm Cortex A9s - quad core 2 ghz chips that max out at... 1 watt total.

    23. Re:What about atom? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but no matter how much energy you are using you are paying the same rate. Its like getting an infinite amount of gas for $50 a month and deciding to drive a hybrid, if you don't have any cap, go all out and get the most power for your money.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    24. Re:What about atom? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ``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.''

      On the other hand, the TDP is (as far as understand it) an upper bound on what the CPU could draw. If you do need the processing power on a regular basis, then you may get close to the power figures stated - but then the Athlon II allegedly (I didn't verify the claims) also gets you a lot more processing power. If you don't need the full processing power (the more likely scenario), then you will also not use as much power. The Athlon II CPUs in this chart use about 7 W when idle. I don't know what an Intel Atom uses when idle, but I wonder if it leaves a very large difference. At some point, when you want to save power, the best thing to do is to simply turn off the computer.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  2. $200??? by dskoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's crazy-expensive. We recently bought 6 second-hand little HP desktops for $69 each. They only came with 512MB of RAM, so another $15 each upgraded them to 1GB, and they are perfectly serviceable desktops for our sales and admin team.

    The CPU is slower than in the story (single-core Athlon 64 at 1GHz), but performance is just fine.

    1. Re:$200??? by tgatliff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you would agree that performance no longer is a problem is most cases... Meaning, those HP desktops most likely will perform just as well (and long) as the new ones of today. Pretty sad if you think about it...

    2. Re:$200??? by pinkj · · Score: 5, Informative

      They explained that they wanted to create a box for $200, but still be able to upgrade. The mobo is AM3 with DDR3 support, so they could skimp on the CPU and RAM for now with the intention to upgrade with recent technology in the future. They didn't mention it, but it seems they wanted to build a box with new parts as oppose to second hand ones.

    3. Re:$200??? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, my wife's machine is a 5yo Gateway laptop with a 3GHz P4 and 1.5G of memory. For lots of stuff, it runs faster than my 2.2GHz dual-core machine at work. Lots of stuff is still single-threaded, and even though that's changing, there's often a critical path that can't be partitioned. Faster CPUs still == win much of the time.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    4. Re:$200??? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 3 GHz P4 is slower on single-threaded applications than most 2.2GHz single/dual core processors (AMD Athalon/Core2) simply because P4's had high clocks but a poorly designed and underperforming architecture that made instructions take more cycles and memory accesses more frequent than on the Athalon/Core2's.

      What you see as "faster" is probably a combination of perception, dependencies on networked software, and background software overhead (anti-virus, outlook, etc) that tends to bog down business computers.

      I say this, because a company I work for bought a set of Dell XPS computers a year ago (small project was required to spend around 6k/computer for the amount to be high enough to justify procurement), each with Core2Quads, 8gb+ of ram, bunch of other toys with massive screens, blah blah...

      Anyhow, the XPS's run about like a 3 GHz P4 desktop-replacement-laptop my mother bought back in 2005.

      *Both* feel like they have a small fraction of the power of an AMD 64 X2 4400+ (2.2ghz) based desktop that I built back in 2007.

      What I'm trying to say is that your claim doesn't make any sense from an architectural standpoint if you're familiar with the P4 architectures, and for good reason, since what you perceive as speed has to do with many other factors than the processor and thread handling behavior.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    5. Re:$200??? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and considering that the AM3 will hold both the Phenom II 1055T and 1090T, which are both 6 core enthusiast monsters.. I've got to give them +++CREDIT TO TEAM+++ .. the machine is upgradeable all the way to the current bleeding edge.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:$200??? by PRMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      +++CREDIT TO TEAM+++

      Hey, watch those 3 pluses buddy, you just made me get a NO CARRIER!

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  3. 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.

    1. Re:This has always been a plus for Linux, so? by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do I find this article surprising? Not at all.

      I'd generally agree, but it's nice to see an article like this. The biggest mistake attributable to new users is making uninformed hardware choices. If the hardware is fully supported, and there's an write-up somewhere on the web confirming that, then the rest is easy.

      That said, what's missing from the article is the dmesg output. A quick search suggests that the motherboard has onboard Realtek RTL8111B NICs, and those NICs aren't supported by FreeBSD. Whether that's the case, or whether it matters, I don't know, but it does underscore the need to know what it is you're buying before you buy it.

  4. Supported Hardware by digitalhermit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With the right hardware Linux is perfect for old hardware. You can customize and tune it quite a bit better than most other OSes. However, the caveat is that the hardware must be decently supported. For example, I have an old laptop with an ATI Mobility 7500 on which I installed Centos 5.5. Normally I'd just grab the FGLRX installer from ATI and remake a module, but in this case, the modules don't work properly. As a result, I'm using a non-accelerated video driver which is painfully slow even for non-intensive graphics such as scrolling a terminal window. I'm not conceding defeat yet. It might be a matter of putting the correct hardware ID into the source and re-compiling or it might be something else entirely. Luckily I know how to do that, but sometimes it's a chore. Not difficult to do, certainly, but a PITA.

    On the other hand I have some old single-core AMD Athlons running some virtual machines via Xen and KVM. Even after years of service, they still do a very good job. On a nightly basis they run some software rebuilds in some VMs and in others run DNS, LDAP, fileservers and mail. I have imported the VMs into a newer quad-core system, but until they die, they use less power than the modern machine.

    1. Re:Supported Hardware by FreonTrip · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I remember correctly the Mobility 7500 was never supported by the fglrx driver. It's a mobile derivative of the original Radeon core, so you're probably stuck with using the 'radeon' driver in X.org. Adding the PCI ID to the source, recompiling, and keeping two fingers crossed should do the trick; if it doesn't, get in touch with the developers. Good luck!

  5. Cheap Building can be quite demanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last winter I put together a 100 euro (~130 dollar) gaming(!) rig.
    Took a oc-friendly last-generation graphics card, (~30e), low-end Intel core2 CPU (~25e), random used LGA775 Board (~25e) and 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM (~20e). All 3 off ebay.

    I got a IDE-Harddrive, CD-drive and PSU with IDE-style connectors laying around (who uses IDE these days anyway?) and repurposed an old case.

    With the graphics card and CPU oc'ed (CPU stable at around twice the stock frequency with boxed cooler) it's a quite veritable rig. Though not every setting can be maxed out, it performs well with any new game.

  6. Re:How much disk space do they need...? by kevinmenzel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well my "mp3" collection is over 400GB - though that includes quite a lot of FLAC and WMA-lossless... just saying... (And that represents over 30,000 tracks)

  7. If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Windows 7 Home Premium retains for $199.99 it obviously has to run Linux otherwise it would be a $400 PC.

    I remember reading an article about 15 years ago that said the operating system used to account for 2% of the cost of a PC but by then it was 10% of the cost. It seems that thanks to falling hardware prices and rising prices from Microsoft we've now hit the point where the operating system can be 50% of the cost of the PC.

    For purely economical reasons children should use Linux exclusively in schools. As things stand the education system is just generating customers for Microsoft which allows Microsoft to charge whatever they want for the products. I say this as somebody who uses Windows exclusively and who's pissed off at the prices Microsoft charge for their retail software. If I'd grown up using Linux I'd have saved myself a lot of money.

    1. Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. 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?

    3. Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the OEM version which has too many restrictions to be viable for people who assembe their own PCs. If you regularly upgrade your system components you can find that the OEM version will deactivate and Microsoft will refuse to reactivate it. The retail version is the only real option for self-builders and that's retails for $200, or $180 at NewEgg:

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116716&cm_re=windows_home_premium-_-32-116-716-_-Product

  8. excluding taxes and shipping? by dirtyhippie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    excluding taxes and shipping is pretty ridiculous. they could easily add 1/4 to the budget, and if saving money (not just "ooh, look what i can do") is really a goal, they would have included it.

  9. That's what my computers always cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, 200€ actually, but anyway. This is pretty much how I've built the computers for myself and my family for quite some time now:
    - 50€ for Case + Power Supply
    - 50€ for Motherboard that has Audio, NIC and GPU integrated
    - 50€ for CPU
    - 50€ for RAM

    Some of the pieces could be a little bit less or more than 50€, but in general that's how it goes. And we've always been perfectly happy with the performance of the machines.

  10. Used by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I get computers for the school staff for $90 apiece at http://www.techcentercomputers.com/ P4, 512MB, 80GB, XP.

  11. Re:How much disk space do they need...? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "10 years' worth of digital photos for two people (the other doesn't have a camera) = about 10GB."

    Depends on what sort of photos you take. Da spouse has over 100GB of painted bunting photos alone (RAW images mostly).

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  12. Why not just buy a used $200 PC? by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see the point of this entire article. Why not just buy a used $200 PC and install Linux on it? Or just keep the Windows and install Linux as a dual-boot (If possible)? There are millions of used $200 PCs available. Nearly all will last another five years at least with normal use.

  13. Re:not much of a challenge, how about $150 compute by mariushm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Motherboard with video and sound integrated - 40$ , CPU - 37$ , case + psu - 30$, memory 20$

    We're at 127$ right now, well maybe at 135$ if we include mouse+keyboard

    The hard drive is what would push us over the edge, so how about we just replace it with a 8GB memory stick that's 13-15$ ? 2 GB for the OS should be enough (you would install a Linux in much less space if you want to) and you still have 6 GB left for documents and files.

  14. Where's the monitor/etc.? by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This system is not useful as a desktop if it doesn't include a monitor, keyboard and mouse. The cheapest monitor I see on Newegg is a $99 Hanns-G HW-173ABB 17" LCD monitor, so that would push the price up to $300. The cheapest keyboard and mouse set is about $10. Speakers are about $5. New total is $315 excluding shipping. There's also no mention of whether the integrated sound works in Linux, and whether the integrated video works well (or if Ubuntu resorts to safe graphics mode). I would not be complaining if they had mentioned any of these things in the article.

  15. cheap hardware == problems down the road by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    foxconn branded boards look good on paper, but they fail in about year. Like everyone keeps saying, just buy a well built Intel Atom based system.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. Re:on the curb / dumpster Yes you can find CRT the by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you're going to dumpster dive for a CRT, why not just dumpster dive for the whole computer? :^)

  17. Price points are very different today by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just picked up an Acer One netbook from Target for $199 this week. Windows 7 basic (lose some features I could care less about). 10 inch screen LED lit, 1024x600, 1.66 Atom processor, 1g ram, 160g hard drive, and wi-fi.

    Why would I want to build anything with prices like that? Best of all, its very portable, has lasted almost eight hours on a charge, and the keyboard is good too.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  18. $300 Quad core by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    2.5Ghz quad, 800GB(64MB cache), 2GB DDR3-1333, HDMI out, crappy case.

    $75.99 AMD Phenom 9850 2.5GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Black Edition Processor HD985ZXAJ4BGH
    $59.99 Western Digital Caviar Green WD8000AARS 800GB 5400 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
    $69.99 MSI 760GM-E51 AM3 AMD 760G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
    $47.99 Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model CT2KIT12864BA1339
    $39.99 Foxconn TLM776-CN300C-01 Black/ Silver Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 300W Power Supply
    ------
    $283.95

    shipping it works out to about $300, more if you have to pay tax.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. Simple by mrwolf007 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Updates wont break the "crack".

  20. DIY to safe money? No by mrwolf007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While you can sure safe money on a diy-box there are far better reasons for that approach.
    Most pre-assembled boxes fail on a quite a couple of choices.
    Case:
    Unless you are getting some overpriced gamer boxes the case is crap! Hassle to upgrade, cheap materials, lots of edges you can cut yourself etc...
    I will be keeping my nice Chieftec tower for the next couple of iterations. Exchanging drives is a lot faster, everything is easy to to get too, nice cool and quiet (with the extra ventilation).
    Power Unit:
    One of the mayor sources of annoyance. Choosing an efficient and quiet one sure is relaxing.
    Mainboard:
    Mainboards happen to be the number one source of failure in PCs. Even rather expensive boxes usually have cheap boards since they cant advertise them (more ghz? No. More cores? No. More memory? No. More reliable capacitors? Ever see something like that in a description?)
    The mobo is the component i never safe money on. Its supposed to handle the next cpu as well and i rather keep a good mobo than getting the next asrock or similiar.

    Do i safe money compared to a similarly specced box from a retailer? No.
    But i know its more reliable and easy to upgrade, so i do safe money in the long run due to upgrading and have less hassle replacing sub-par components.

  21. Problem by ceraphis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Computer manufacturers or parts manufacturers will never push the idea of custom built computers to the uninformed masses. There's much more money involved in pre-built systems, even more when you stick an atom in a net-top instead of a much more capable c2d. Computer manufacturers make more money from markup, and parts manufacturers can streamline the production process straight to the manufacturer, possibly even at a premium.