Hello, I'm a Mac. And I'm a $248 Win8 PC.
theodp writes "A little birdie told me which Windows 8 machines would sell out fast. 'Cheep' ones! While no official sales figures have emerged, anecdotal evidence suggests that cheap Windows 8 laptops were a big hit with Black Friday shoppers, leaving some Walmart and Best Buy bargain hunters disappointed at missing out on the sub-$250 deals. So, was the Doctor-Desktop-and-Mister-Metro dual nature of Windows 8 and lack of a touchscreen no big deal to these bargain basement 'Laptop Hunters', or did they not realize what they were buying? Or, as a GeekWire commenter suggests, perhaps they were really just looking to score an ultra-cheap Linux laptop!"
They have no idea what they purchased, it was a cheap buy and they will be sorely disappointed when it runs like crap a year from now.
People aren't buying "Windows 8" PCs, they are buying "cheap" PCs that, as an amazing coincidence, come preinstalled with the latest version of Windows (which is... Windows 8)
What's the point of this article, and why the comparison with Apple?
They work fine, once you put an operating system on them.
A turd is a turd, I wouldnt touch it even for free. Think about TCO and ROI. I used my Mac for more than a year at my job until they actually bought one "for me".
Well yeah, but the underlying hardware might be decent enough. If that's the case then you can put Linux have the best of both worlds: cheap hardware and an excellent OS.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There isn't (well not a normal desktop). There is a tutorial about Metro when you first log in.
I was hugely skeptical about 8 and installed it on a spare machine the wife will be using. I have probably put about 5 hours in of just playing around and to be honest it is surprisingly easy to get used to and not bad to work with. The Windows key is definitely your friend. I was thinking you would need touch as well before but it works fine without. There is still a couple areas where I question but I wouldn't necessarily reimage a machine back to 7 if it had 8 at this point.
If it worth the effort dealing with hardware, UEFI, lack of support for Linux, hacking and the overall inconsistency (yet), of the several Linux desktops /: I use and hack Linux servers/and in virtual infra-structures (aka cloud for PHBs), but cant bother to have Linux for my desktop. Time is money.
, but cant bother to have Linux for my desktop. Time is money.
When it comes to installing all the programs I need, keeping security up to date, making sure all the tools run well together, making sure my development environment has access to the libraries I need etc, I can't be bothered with anything but Linux for the desktop. Time is money.
and the overall inconsistency (yet), of the several Linux desktops /
Overall inconsistency? Surely you jest? My window manager config is not much changed from the late 90's. I've not had to adapt to new and more poorly functioning (I've tried, but always revert) desktop environment in a decade and a half.
Linux is the only system that has provided any degree consistency over all these years. Heck, the Window decorations bear much more similarity to pre Window-95 than to 95 and after.
Oh and because of the flexibility of X11, I can configure my window manager to beat poorly behaving applications into submission so thay they behave consistently with the rest of the system. This is some not generally possible on the less good operating systems: if an application programmer thinks they know better you have to put up with their poor decisions. (And now the Wayland folks are trying to bring that to Linux. But that's another rant.)
I haven't even had to give up compositing support. FVWM works side by side with any of the xcompmgr derivatives. I played with drop shadows and transparency and animations a bit for fun, then disabled them because I found they intefere with work.
So actually, if you look at it from another point of view, Linux, or specifically X11, offers a far more consistent user interface than the other operating systems.
Time is money.
Yes and no. I use Linux for two reasons. Firstly it's much more efficient. Secondly it's much, much more pleasant to use. I avoid jobs where I have to use Windows for the same reason I avoid jobs which involve being repeatedly jabbed with pointy sticks. Sure the jobs might pay well, but why do something I disklike?
Time is more than money. You only get time once.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
WTF? Slashdot is referencing a comment on Geekwire as a basis for people installing Linux? How low can it go? Idiot submitters like theodp and symbolset are turning Slashdot into a anti-Microsoft tabloid rather than any place for serious discussion. Not surprising that people with half a brain are ditching Slashdot in droves in disgust.
It's alike an OSX 10.3 (or later) Mac - you don't have to shut it down. Just let it sleep. It'll run rock solid for months. A restart is an advanced trouble-shooting technique.
That's nice but it sounds as if he wanted to shut it down. That doesn't seem like an extravagant desire, even if he doesn't "have to".
SImple. They were buying what they thought was a great deal and the cheapest computer around, as this is the only computer christmas present they could buy while thinking it is a real computer.
For you: no, you must shutdown your laptop. Everyone else can just put their laptop to sleep mode like they've been doing for over ten years.
95% or more really only want to connect to facebook, yelp, twitter, instagram, etc. email as a stand alone application is dead. Web browsing is dead. In so far as consumers actually need to find something, all they want is the first hit they see when they type "Gimme hurrp durrp whars Twilight playing?" in the Bing search field. And EVEN THAT is going away because MS will put what it thinks you should know or want or need on a crawl that you can stab at with your sticky fat finger.
I am hoping Windows 9 does away with words entirely and uses icons like the cash registers at McDonalds. You want pizza, stab the pizza button. That's all people want anyway. Larnin's for them funny Asian people, bubba.
Heck that"s nothing, here at the shop I'm typing this on a circa 2004 Sempron 1.8Ghz I use as a nettop, it has a dual boot XP/7 and both run just fine, it has 2Gb of RAM which maxes out the board but other than that its pretty much stock. I'm thinking about trying to slap a mobile Athlon in here next week (just to see if I can, supposedly a lot of these socket 754s could take the mobile chips) but it does everything you'd expect a nettop to do, surfs, downloads, hell it'll even play SD flash videos smooth.
So while i agree one can do just fine on an older machine i just have to ask...a P4? Really? You DO know those were power hogs, right? Maybe you should look into swapping that board for one of those cheap AMD E350 boards, it idles at around 6w, maxes out less than 20w and with a dual core APU you'd get better performance and not be wasting power and cooling on the piggie P4. I'm all for saving old gear from the scrapheap but there is a reason why i sell all the P4 and Pentium D systems that comes through my door while keeping the AMD, the difference in power and heat really isn't funny.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It's nowhere near as bad as the many reviews make it out to be.
Yes, it has its issues and I don't agree with everything they did. And it's obvious they're trying to bring Tablet and PC together.
But I applaud trying something "different" Face it, the UI design for Windows hasn't changed much since the 3.1 days (or I perhaps the 95 days). Even OSX has had pretty much the same UI since it was released, and has a LOT in common with its old System X days.
And Windows 8 is actually fairly nice, ONCE you get used to it. That's the problem: you're getting used to something that's different that what you've known for the last 20+ years. The various reviews use previous OS's as a template to say "THIS is good design, and here's why" when really they're just stating UX concepts that were founded AROUND the interfaces that were popular and long-living.
The only real annoying things to me are:
- Shutting Down / Rebooting is insanely stupid. Like 8 mouse clicks.
- The 3rd party metro apps go over-board with the scrolling text. To the point that you can't tell what a lot of those 3rd party "tiles" actually are. Most of the ones that come with Windows 8 are fine though: the title of the app or an icon is on the tile so you know what's what.
Will it last long? Probably not, enough people will not like getting used to it that I'm sure Microsoft will have to back-peddle in Windows 9 to a more classic UI.
Caveat: I'm a 99% windows user with just about enough unix experience to traverse a directory structure.
I'm not sure how you quantify faster, there are a lot of things which mean 'faster' to me:
From the initiation of the OS boot process to when my scripts start loading VHDs it takes about 15 seconds. (I use that as a benchmark because that's approximately where the system becomes responsive to a user on a clean install) I've not yet timed Ubuntu for booting, so I can't compare that directly (I don't think loading from the USB is a fair comparison since my OS is loading from RAID0 SSDs)
However, in terms of actual performance once the OS is up and running or installed on a machine... It doesn't seem nearly as fast. Certainly not the freaking Dash application search thing. The UI design on that is horrible. I find myself wondering if I actually clicked it, I assume yes because the rest of the screen dimmed, but I've been having nothing but trouble with it so I typically just launch everything from the terminal now.
I'll be installing Ubuntu directly to the machine later today, so I'll get a good comparison on boot times and a clean install, but in terms of pure 'faster' performance from the user perspective, not based on what I've seen. Anecdotal evidence, but that's all that matters to me because I don't care if it works better in theory or in general, I only care if it works better for me.
The thing is: I WANT to like linux. It's why I have a semi-annual install fest on my machines (which slowly migrate back to Windows over several months), but there is no way I can consider it 'faster' if the instant I run into an issue there isn't an intuitive way to correct the issue. That eats up my time, and that colors my perception of the speed of the system. Right now, Linux seems to be much like a F1 race car. Sure, when it goes, it goes fast, but in between those periods of speed are significant chunks of time where a team of experts is rebuilding, tuning, and prepping the system for it's next sprint.
I know this is probably pretty obvious, but I run into an issue with a machine that is running an ATI R300x video card. Unity does not play well with it. So right now I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with it, and reading the tech threads mentions things like "This issue is known, and may be worked on" Of course, these threads are 2-3 years old, so I wonder if I'm just missing the obvious fix/patch/update/setting which resolves the issue. I haven't found it yet, I haven't looked hard though, but it's already taken up more time than I care to invest when I KNOW I could just install XP and have the system running well in 90 minutes. I'll probably toss some more time into it this weekend, but in the meantime that system will just be my hobby/learning system and that's a big issue for the perception of linux. Again, I bet it will be fast... after it's running (which may just involve me buying a whole new piece of hardware)
Heck, I wanted to install a python environment/stack (enthought), and it took me a good bit of time to just get it to install (chmod to make it executable, proper syntax to run the .sh file) Then I had to double check the appropriate path since that isn't intuitive to me yet (do I put it in /bin? Or somewhere in home?) So I install it, and then I'm told to make sure my PATH is updated... do I do that in .profile, .bashrc, somewhere else? How do I make I make that stick? Once I do it, I'll know it but...
Remember I'm a newbie to this, and thus all of this tweaking around the backend just to get things to the point where they would be faster costs me time, and every minute I spend looking up arcane error messages, or wondering how the hell do I do..., is a minute that I'm thinking "I could be done already if I had just stuck with Windows"
So faster comes to mean a lot of different things, and the fact that a mail client or firefox loads up 0.3s faster than the windows equivalent doesn't mean much (to me).
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Do you think that the GP having to uninstall and install various distros and try them out is going to make him feel like linux, as a whole, is somehow FASTER?
See, this is exactly why linux/unix are annoying to setup. There's always some hack that needs to be done since I have a dozen different wireless adapters, video cards, etc, etc.
In point one serviscope_minor says:
"A new machine is easy to set up. The install takes however long these things do these days. Customizing is a question of copying my .bashrc, .bash_login, .fvwm2rc, .vimrc, .Xdefaults and .Xmodmap files, which takes around a minute."
No it does not take a "minute." I have no idea where those files are, what they do, how to open it, etc in a linux environment.
Personally I would learn to figure that out but the average user will not.