Ah, Mac fanboys... you never cease to amaze me. You protest loudly about how Microsoft makes it hard to run Windows on a Mac. What about the fact that Apple makes it illegal to run OSX on your Dell???
The barrier is just as artificial. An Intel Mac is no different from a modern PC, except that Apple has added some hardware detection to the OS so that it won't run on non-Apple hardware. Of course, this hasn't stopped enterprising hackers from figuring out ways around it.
Apple and Microsoft are both producing proprietary software and trying to force hardware lock-in as well when it suits them. Actually, Apple's hardware lock-in is much worse.
Not to mention that the Mac Mini is an underpowered piece of crap. Why would I pay $600 for a mini when I can get a much more powerful mini-PC, or a fully loaded desktop with monitor, for that price??? But I digress...
Is there any real case law on the enforceability of the Microsoft EULA? According to Wikipedia, most courts have found shrinkwrap licenses not to be valid or enforceable.
How many people are actually going to be stopped from virtualizing Vista by the EULA?
That's right! And you could buy a 487 "coprocessor" for the 486SX, which would add floating point. But guess what? The 487 was just a 486DX with an extra pin to prevent it from being used as a (cheaper) 486DX!
Uhhmmm, your point? This is done by almost every company out there, including hardware companies (no, once the yields are good that low end cpu is no different from a high end one except for being factory clocked lower).
Welll.... that's not quite true. Usually CPUs get tested for thermal stability at high frequencies, and then they get conservatively downrated. So a CPU that runs fine in factory testing at 2.3 GHz might get sold at 2.0 GHz, for example. However, *if* there is extra market demand for the lower-graded processors, *then* the manufacturer may artificially reduce some higher-performing CPUs. Usually this is the case, but you can't always rely on it.
What they do with mainframes is even crazier! If you buy a low-end IBM mainframe, they'll actually ship you the same hardware as the high-end version... but with most of its processing modules locked out by some DRM-ish firmware. If you then pay to upgrade, IBM sends you the activation codes and "presto" you have more hardware. Apparently this arrangement pleases most of the users, since it lowers costs for everyone involved. This is the reason that the draft GPLv3 only prevents "Tivoization" of *consumer* products, and not of *business-only* products, since those companies were very vocal about wanting to be locked out of their hardware.:-P
Personally, the idea of owning hardware that's capable of more than it actually lets me do makes me quite angry. I guess that's a big part of why I run Linux.
That's what I do... I virtualize XP with QEMU and KQEMU. Runs great. I have *exactly one* Windows application that I use, Quartus II, which is used to design and program Altera FPGAs. It's free as in beer, but you have to pay $$$ for the Linux version. I absolutely cannot bear to boot into Windows without quickly tearing my hair out at the lack of a decent command line, so virtualizing it is a pretty good alternative.
The only problem is that currently USB is verrry slow under QEMU: programming an FPGA over USB takes about 2 seconds in native windows, and about 2 minutes under QEMU. But I know that QEMU is hard at work on improving that particular feature:-)
I know that Dell has been marketing the Ubuntu systems as intended for "Home and Home Office". And I know that they play LOTS of games with their prices, selling the same system to different market segments for surprisingly different prices.
For example, compare the specs of the $699 Home Inspiron 1501 to the $549 Small Business 1501! The latter costs $150 less but has the EXACT SAME SPECS except for a smaller battery (a $30 upgrade). So you can basically get a 20% discount by buying the small biz version... Then again, sometimes the promotions for the home systems are better. The deals and discounts are CONSTANTLY changing, so I go to edealinfo.com, which does a good job keeping track of them.
The thing is, in my experience Dell doesn't care if individuals buy Small Business systems or vice versa. Heck, they don't even care if some random person buys a computer through their Employee and Affiliate Program. For example, a few weeks ago I got a really good deal on a new Inspiron 1501 by buying it through the affiliate program... I just gave them my home CC number and mailing address, and sure enough the computer arrived a week later.:-)
I think the difference might be ordering online vs. ordering over the phone! When you order online, there appears to be absolutely zero verification of whether your home/business/affiliate purchase is going to the right place... but over the phone there may be some stupid bureaucracy in your way. To the OP, I suggest trying to do your order again online!
My understanding is that this is only a real problem with Macs, due to the poor hardware/software implementation of USB. Check out this comparison: http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html. They find sustained speeds of 28-38 MB/s with Firewire on the Macs, but only 16-18 MB/s with USB 2.0. On the other hand, with Windows XP, they get 27-33 MB/s with USB 2.0.
So, with a good implementation, Firewire is maybe 25% faster than USB. Not a showstopper for USB 2.0 in my book. Availability is a much larger concern with portable devices.
I agree that sys-to-sys file transfer is a *great* feature of firewire. I think it's also invaluable for doing kernel debugging, since firewire can do direct and unconstrained memory access.
On the other hand, there's no reason a $5 USB dongle couldn't be built for file transfer, and drivers written for Mac, Windows, and Linux... it's just that no one has made one yet. There are already standard USB dongles for parallel and serial ports... why not file transfer?:-(
I don't mean to belittle firewire. It is a great technology. It would be even better if it were more widely available. I can't rely on it being present as with USB, so I don't use it for external drives. We can blame Apple for charging money to license Firewire (about $0.25-$1 per device), and thus ensuring that USB 2.0 would thrash it in the marketplace.
Most of the external devices I use are incredibly mundane things: mice, keyboards, flash drives, webcams, wireless dongles. Those things don't need high performance, cheap and ubiquitous is much more important. That's why USB 2.0 wins. The only areas where Firewire really wins are DV and mass storage, but USB2.0 mass storage is "good enough" for me, and I don't do DV.
I want to build media center. How quiet is that dell? Does it fit on my book shelf?
My mom wants a computer she can fit on her tiny desk, does the Dell do that?
No, the Dell is not DESIGNED for those uses (although Dell seems to do a good job of shipping quiet fans and PSUs, I have to say).But I was responding to a post that said the Mini was basically a good deal as a "general purpose" computer.You want to talk media center/small space PCs, that's another topic... and still one that the Mini would lose, I think.
The Mini is more expensive because it uses a laptop hard drive and laptop ram. It's basically a headless laptop.
Sure, but it's still a bad deal! I just bought a *real* laptop from Dell and for $596 I got:
Athlon 64 X2 TL-60 4000+ BEATS 1.66GHz Core Duo in the $599 mini
1gb RAM BEATS 512mb in the $599 mini
80gb SATA 5400rpm BEATS 60gb in the $599 mini
ATI Radeon Xpress 200 TIES Intel GMA 950 in the $599 mini
10/100 eth and 56k modem TIES same in the $599 mini
AC'97 audio TIES $599 mini
And a bunch of stuff the mini doesn't include at all:
15.4 in glossy LCD monitor
5-hour battery,
g/b wireless
keyboard and touchpad
SD card reader
speakers
expresscard slot
So, um... I'd pay a premium for the laptop components in the mini, and yet it costs as much as a full-blown Dell laptop even though it doesn't actually include a display, input devices, or wireless card.
I could Build a desktop using Free after rebate cases and power supplies, cheap HD and it'll sound like a wind tunnel (and my debian machine does, that's why it sits in the closet.) That's not what the Mac Mini aspires to be and that's not the market it is sold to.
Indeed! I have a similar machine on my desk at work that I threw together a few months ago:-). Lesseee... Athlon 64 X2, ECS mobo with video and LAN, 1gb RAM, flimsy case with 300W PSU, a couple old hard drives, 21" CRT that I found in the hall.I think it cost me $230. For $600 I expect to get a WHOLE LOT MORE from Dell, HP, Acer, or Newegg.
The bottom line for me: The products that Apple makes are cool. They are original, they are attractive, they are on the leading edge, and they are sometimes groundbreaking. But they are expensive. I will not pay $200-500 extra for aesthetics. Heck, I won't pay $10 for those features. Not when I can keep my smug sense of curmudgeonly superiority for free;-)
Alternatively grab your emachines POS, then sit for 18 months wondering what kind of asshole company makes a laptop without a firewire port.
Lesseee... why do I need a firewire port on a laptop? My last laptop had one. It was *the only* port I NEVER used, in 5 years of using that thing literally to death. For external storage, I use USB 2.0. It's not *quite* as fast as Firewire (especially under MacOS, funny enough), but you can get USB enclosures for literally $5-10 today. If you really need massive amounts of external storage then, um... why use a laptop?
I suppose if I did digital video I might want firewire. But I don't. And frankly, I don't see any other good reason to use Firewire today.
Actually, Apple competes with their Mac Mini. ($599 and up)
Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo), with twice the RAM, twice the HD, and a 19" monitor included: http://edealinfo.com/dealsearch/Controller.php
Oh, and it's easily upgradable. If having a tiny brick-sized computer is what you want, get a Mac Mini--though I'd prefer an HP Slimline, personally--but don't pretend that the Mac Mini is actually a good value at the low end.
Yeah, I agree that there's just no contest on the low end.
I just bought a Dell Inspiron 1501 with the highest-end AMD Turion 64 X2 processor, 1gb RAM, 80gb SATA HD, 9-cell battery (not the usual 4-6 cell), etc., for $595 via an online deal. If I had wanted to go Core 2 Duo, I could've got something similar to the $1099 MacBook for around $800-900 from Dell or HP.
And frankly, I don't see my new computer as low end. I'm trying to figure out how a more expensive computer would differ... more RAM and HD, somewhat lighter weight, and maybe a built-in webcam or something.
I don't see your point. You talk about ethernet drivers which are ususally low complexity drivers and use this as an argument to support your 3d driver claims.
Full-featured 802.11g wireless drivers are pretty darn complex. I don't believe there is anything particularly "exceptional" about 3D drivers, so I see the comparison as perfectly valid. For years we've seen proprietary software makers concede that "open source can do X, but Y is too complicated." I have no reason to believe that 3D drivers are any different.
People have *talked* about developing 3D drivers for modern GPUs for *years* and go figure they don't exist or are even anywhere near existing today. Its a horizontal market and there is a lot of demand for 3D so I don't see the excuse. I'll believe it can be done when someone actually does it.
Well, the Intel GMA drivers already exist, having being released by Intel as fully open-source. And the open source community is (surprise!) working on improving them.
As far as Intel... lets see Intel sells general purpose CPUs that need to interoperate within a wide range of operating environments. Intel has to release the specs in order for this to be achivable to the mutual benefit of all parties.
NV and AMD are interested only in winning their bloody GPU war and have no interoperability requirements or constraints. Giving away their secrets/work/whatever you want to call it at this level is of no advantage to these companies and I think this is all pretty obvious. Why is this so hard for some to understand?
I don't think this is quite accurate. As long as it's only NV vs. AMD, they may not have much reason to release anything. However, this creates an opening for a third player, who will start out behind but gain a competitive advantage by releasing open-source driver.
And at this point, Intel is clearly gunning for that spot. They already have an extensive line of integrated graphics, and they'll be making discrete graphics chips soon. If Intel follows through and releases open-source drivers for these new cards, I expect that open-source developers will flock to them in droves and rapidly improve the drivers. This will put more pressure on NV and AMD.
Very interesting! I hadn't heard this before, but found a thread with some brief mentions of patented optimizations on kerneltrap: http://kerneltrap.org/node/486
Do you happen to have a link to any complete stories that talk about these patents?
There is no way that an open-source GPU driver can ever achieve same quality (in terms of performance and compatibility at a given timeframe) as an actively developed proprietary driver. GPUs are very complex devices, and drivers make a huge difference on performance. In order to make a fast driver you really need to know how the target GPU works on a very low level.
This is the same tired, fallacious argument NVidia has been trotting out for years: "Developing GPU drivers is much too complex. Why don't you Linux kids go run along and play with your toys, and let us write the GPU drivers?"
Well, it's just wrong. I have used many reverse-engineered drivers for complex pieces of hardware, and nearly all of them work as well as or better than the original vendor's drivers. Most recently, I had the pleasure of trying out the Broadcom 43xx wireless driver, which was painstakingly reverse engineered in the face of an INCREDIBLY recalcitrant vendor that won't release a shred of documentation on their devices to open source developers, even under NDA! And, surprise, the card works better under Linux with the reverse-engineered driver than it does with the Windows driver, which seems to lose the signal quite often. The bcm43xx developer Michael Buesch has even got some evidence that certain parts of their code are implemented more efficiently and elegantly than the original driver.
Naturally, NVidia will not disclose this low level stuff about their GPUs to outsiders.
Why is this "natural"? Intel releases documentation on the low level stuff about their GPUs, Realtek goes out of its way to help the Linux community with Ethernet and wireless IC documentation, and Linksys has released the complete code for its Linux-based routers. If a business is based on continual innovation--rather than maintaining an entrenched monopoly--it is entirely possible to be successful and open at the same time.
You can compare GPU drivers to compilers. There is no way that open-source compiler (GCC) will ever produce as good code for new Intel's CPUs as Intel's own compiler (ICC) as long as ICC is actively developed.
Again, this is only true if Intel holds back some of the documentation necessary to make a good compiler. If they publish complete instruction set information, with accurate timing, cache, and pipeline data (which they have done, for the most part), then making a better compiler is "merely" a question of developer resources and talent.
I suspect that, to the extent that GCC code doesn't run quite as fast as ICC, it's because GCC has higher priorities for its code base, especially ensuring support for an incredible breadth of platforms. GCC has essentially become the reference compiler for a lot of embedded development in particular. Even companies like Broadcom that won't lift a finger to help open source out rely on GCC to build the firmware for their own devices.
I'm gonna hafta say... give Dell a break for now. It's pretty cool that they've gone from the idea of offering Linux pre-installed to actually shipping it in just a couple of months. There are undoubtedly gonna be a few support issues to resolve. Let's see if this gets noticed and fixed before declaring that Dell has "squandered" all the goodwill that their innovative policy has created.
(Speaking as a guy who just bought his first Dell, and is very happy with it. I bought a Vista system, since I wanted a much cheaper AMD Turion 64 processor, but promptly wiped the drive and installed Ubuntu.)
Yeah... hardware/software working together. Not exactly new. In fact, I believe it is impossible to build a useful stored-program computer without it:-)
This is the most content-free article I've ever read. It's basically a press release with an female professor thrown in to boot. Yay.
I just don't see DSL as dead, or even threatened. Not around here, anyway.
Likewise! I've had both cable and DSL off and on since around 2000, and much prefer DSL. It tends to be a lot cheaper and more reliable. None of the DSL connections I've had have ever appeared to just "not work" for more than a minute or two, and that only very rarely (maybe once a month or less). While cable connections seem to flake out for hours at a time, and more frequently.
Plus DSL is a lot cheaper everywhere I've lived. At my parents' home in Michigan, they can get 512 kB DSL for $15/month, and 2 MB for $25, but basic cable access would be like $30/month.
Well... they all offer 64-bit if you upgrade the processors, but the default processor for the laptop is a Pentium Dual-Core (rebranded Intel Core Duo with half the cache). You have to pay about $100 extra to get 64-bit and virtualization. Whereas for $500 they offer the Inspiron 1501, a Windows laptop, with the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 processor which has both those Linux-hacker-friendly features: http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx /inspn_1501?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=FamCustom
Yeah, that's a solid point. I don't do 3D, so I can do just fine with the open-source 2D drivers for ATI cards. If AMD or Nvidia would get their asses in gear and open-source some ATI drivers, it'd be a huge win for those of us who want computers that are:
1. cheap 2. dual-core 3. 64-bit 3. support open-source graphics
Currently, the rock-bottom prices of Turion/Athlon 64 X2 allow me to get 1-3, but Intel graphics are the only fully open-source ones. I know Intel is planning to come out with discrete graphics cards. I wonder if they'll make them for notebooks as well as desktops? Then you could have a laptop with an AMD proc and an Intel GPU, that would sure put the screws on AMD and Nvidia.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. I was attempting to distinguish between the Core Duo, and the Core 2 Duo (which are most of the Intel processors sold today), and I overgeneralized.
The Core don't support EM64T at all, while the Core 2 all do. And actually, a few of the Celeron D/M do support it, though Intel gratuitously disabled it in most of the other Celeron cores that support it.
Yeah, I agree with the idea of sending a message. But it has to be "worth" sending that message: would I rather pay $600 and get a Windows license that I don't want, or choose from a more limited selection, and pay $800 to get a nearly identical system without that Windows license?
Of course, I made the choice that is most personally advantageous to me. I suspect this is a big reason why desktops bundled with Linux haven't caught on: small companies that try and sell Linux-based desktops don't have the same purchasing power and economies of scale as behemoths like Dell and HP which bundle their systems with Windows. So us Linux geeks buy the systems with Windows bundled and just discard it. We save money, but we pay Microsoft as well, so we're not saving as much money as we could in theory.
I think this is a pretty bold and impressive move by Dell... I just hope that they extend it across their entire product line. If the Customization options for every Dell system included a choice like, "Operating System: Ubuntu Linux (subtract $50/$100 from price)", you'd bet there'd soon be a *lot* more people running Ubuntu. Maybe a rough adjustment for those users and for tech support at first, but I believe the Linux community would come out far ahead in adoption in perception in a short amount of time.
... But you can get even better deals on Dells by hunting around at Edealinfo or Fatwallet. I just ordered a Dell laptop yesterday that ended up being significantly cheaper than the e1505n, and yet it comes with Vista Home Premium (it was some kind of educational/affiliate/whatever discount that I found on Fatwallet).
Also, it bugs me that none of the Ubuntu systems have AMD processors! Most of us who run Linux want 64-bit these days, since 64-bit "just works" under Linux, and gives a pretty good performance boost. And among Intel Desktop processors, only the Core 2 Duo support 64-bit, while *ALL* the AMD processors now support 64-bit, from the lowly Sempron on up.
Anyone know if Dell will offer an AMD system with Ubuntu?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, Mac fanboys... you never cease to amaze me. You protest loudly about how Microsoft makes it hard to run Windows on a Mac. What about the fact that Apple makes it illegal to run OSX on your Dell???
The barrier is just as artificial. An Intel Mac is no different from a modern PC, except that Apple has added some hardware detection to the OS so that it won't run on non-Apple hardware. Of course, this hasn't stopped enterprising hackers from figuring out ways around it.
Apple and Microsoft are both producing proprietary software and trying to force hardware lock-in as well when it suits them. Actually, Apple's hardware lock-in is much worse.
Not to mention that the Mac Mini is an underpowered piece of crap. Why would I pay $600 for a mini when I can get a much more powerful mini-PC, or a fully loaded desktop with monitor, for that price??? But I digress...
Is there any real case law on the enforceability of the Microsoft EULA? According to Wikipedia, most courts have found shrinkwrap licenses not to be valid or enforceable.
How many people are actually going to be stopped from virtualizing Vista by the EULA?
That's right! And you could buy a 487 "coprocessor" for the 486SX, which would add floating point. But guess what? The 487 was just a 486DX with an extra pin to prevent it from being used as a (cheaper) 486DX!
Welll.... that's not quite true. Usually CPUs get tested for thermal stability at high frequencies, and then they get conservatively downrated. So a CPU that runs fine in factory testing at 2.3 GHz might get sold at 2.0 GHz, for example. However, *if* there is extra market demand for the lower-graded processors, *then* the manufacturer may artificially reduce some higher-performing CPUs. Usually this is the case, but you can't always rely on it.
What they do with mainframes is even crazier! If you buy a low-end IBM mainframe, they'll actually ship you the same hardware as the high-end version... but with most of its processing modules locked out by some DRM-ish firmware. If you then pay to upgrade, IBM sends you the activation codes and "presto" you have more hardware. Apparently this arrangement pleases most of the users, since it lowers costs for everyone involved. This is the reason that the draft GPLv3 only prevents "Tivoization" of *consumer* products, and not of *business-only* products, since those companies were very vocal about wanting to be locked out of their hardware.
Personally, the idea of owning hardware that's capable of more than it actually lets me do makes me quite angry. I guess that's a big part of why I run Linux.
That's what I do... I virtualize XP with QEMU and KQEMU. Runs great. I have *exactly one* Windows application that I use, Quartus II, which is used to design and program Altera FPGAs. It's free as in beer, but you have to pay $$$ for the Linux version. I absolutely cannot bear to boot into Windows without quickly tearing my hair out at the lack of a decent command line, so virtualizing it is a pretty good alternative.
:-)
The only problem is that currently USB is verrry slow under QEMU: programming an FPGA over USB takes about 2 seconds in native windows, and about 2 minutes under QEMU. But I know that QEMU is hard at work on improving that particular feature
I know that Dell has been marketing the Ubuntu systems as intended for "Home and Home Office". And I know that they play LOTS of games with their prices, selling the same system to different market segments for surprisingly different prices.
:-)
For example, compare the specs of the $699 Home Inspiron 1501 to the $549 Small Business 1501! The latter costs $150 less but has the EXACT SAME SPECS except for a smaller battery (a $30 upgrade). So you can basically get a 20% discount by buying the small biz version... Then again, sometimes the promotions for the home systems are better. The deals and discounts are CONSTANTLY changing, so I go to edealinfo.com, which does a good job keeping track of them.
The thing is, in my experience Dell doesn't care if individuals buy Small Business systems or vice versa. Heck, they don't even care if some random person buys a computer through their Employee and Affiliate Program. For example, a few weeks ago I got a really good deal on a new Inspiron 1501 by buying it through the affiliate program... I just gave them my home CC number and mailing address, and sure enough the computer arrived a week later.
I think the difference might be ordering online vs. ordering over the phone! When you order online, there appears to be absolutely zero verification of whether your home/business/affiliate purchase is going to the right place... but over the phone there may be some stupid bureaucracy in your way. To the OP, I suggest trying to do your order again online!
How will I be able to SuperPoke my friends? Or give them little puppy dog icon gifts? Noooooooooo!!!!
My understanding is that this is only a real problem with Macs, due to the poor hardware/software implementation of USB. Check out this comparison: http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html. They find sustained speeds of 28-38 MB/s with Firewire on the Macs, but only 16-18 MB/s with USB 2.0. On the other hand, with Windows XP, they get 27-33 MB/s with USB 2.0.
So, with a good implementation, Firewire is maybe 25% faster than USB. Not a showstopper for USB 2.0 in my book. Availability is a much larger concern with portable devices.
No contest there!
I agree that sys-to-sys file transfer is a *great* feature of firewire. I think it's also invaluable for doing kernel debugging, since firewire can do direct and unconstrained memory access.
:-(
On the other hand, there's no reason a $5 USB dongle couldn't be built for file transfer, and drivers written for Mac, Windows, and Linux... it's just that no one has made one yet. There are already standard USB dongles for parallel and serial ports... why not file transfer?
I don't mean to belittle firewire. It is a great technology. It would be even better if it were more widely available. I can't rely on it being present as with USB, so I don't use it for external drives. We can blame Apple for charging money to license Firewire (about $0.25-$1 per device), and thus ensuring that USB 2.0 would thrash it in the marketplace.
Most of the external devices I use are incredibly mundane things: mice, keyboards, flash drives, webcams, wireless dongles. Those things don't need high performance, cheap and ubiquitous is much more important. That's why USB 2.0 wins. The only areas where Firewire really wins are DV and mass storage, but USB2.0 mass storage is "good enough" for me, and I don't do DV.
My bad! Here it is again, the price is $469 now: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?oc=bddwcbf&cs=04&dgvcode=ss&c=US&l=EN
Oh, and it is in a "bookshelf"-size case as well. Not as small as a Mac Mini, obviously, but smaller than a microATX tower, definitely.
No, the Dell is not DESIGNED for those uses (although Dell seems to do a good job of shipping quiet fans and PSUs, I have to say).But I was responding to a post that said the Mini was basically a good deal as a "general purpose" computer.You want to talk media center/small space PCs, that's another topic... and still one that the Mini would lose, I think.
Sure, but it's still a bad deal! I just bought a *real* laptop from Dell and for $596 I got:
- Athlon 64 X2 TL-60 4000+ BEATS 1.66GHz Core Duo in the $599 mini
- 1gb RAM BEATS 512mb in the $599 mini
- 80gb SATA 5400rpm BEATS 60gb in the $599 mini
- ATI Radeon Xpress 200 TIES Intel GMA 950 in the $599 mini
- 10/100 eth and 56k modem TIES same in the $599 mini
- AC'97 audio TIES $599 mini
- And a bunch of stuff the mini doesn't include at all:
- 15.4 in glossy LCD monitor
- 5-hour battery,
- g/b wireless
- keyboard and touchpad
- SD card reader
- speakers
- expresscard slot
So, um... I'd pay a premium for the laptop components in the mini, and yet it costs as much as a full-blownDell laptop even though it doesn't actually include a display, input devices, or wireless card.
Indeed! I have a similar machine on my desk at work that I threw together a few months ago
The bottom line for me: The products that Apple makes are cool. They are original, they are attractive, they are on the leading edge, and they are sometimes groundbreaking. But they are expensive. I will not pay $200-500 extra for aesthetics. Heck, I won't pay $10 for those features. Not when I can keep my smug sense of curmudgeonly superiority for free
Lesseee... why do I need a firewire port on a laptop? My last laptop had one. It was *the only* port I NEVER used, in 5 years of using that thing literally to death. For external storage, I use USB 2.0. It's not *quite* as fast as Firewire (especially under MacOS, funny enough), but you can get USB enclosures for literally $5-10 today. If you really need massive amounts of external storage then, um... why use a laptop?
I suppose if I did digital video I might want firewire. But I don't. And frankly, I don't see any other good reason to use Firewire today.
Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo), with twice the RAM, twice the HD, and a 19" monitor included: http://edealinfo.com/dealsearch/Controller.php
Oh, and it's easily upgradable. If having a tiny brick-sized computer is what you want, get a Mac Mini--though I'd prefer an HP Slimline, personally--but don't pretend that the Mac Mini is actually a good value at the low end.
Yeah, I agree that there's just no contest on the low end.
I just bought a Dell Inspiron 1501 with the highest-end AMD Turion 64 X2 processor, 1gb RAM, 80gb SATA HD, 9-cell battery (not the usual 4-6 cell), etc., for $595 via an online deal. If I had wanted to go Core 2 Duo, I could've got something similar to the $1099 MacBook for around $800-900 from Dell or HP.
And frankly, I don't see my new computer as low end. I'm trying to figure out how a more expensive computer would differ... more RAM and HD, somewhat lighter weight, and maybe a built-in webcam or something.
Full-featured 802.11g wireless drivers are pretty darn complex. I don't believe there is anything particularly "exceptional" about 3D drivers, so I see the comparison as perfectly valid. For years we've seen proprietary software makers concede that "open source can do X, but Y is too complicated." I have no reason to believe that 3D drivers are any different.
Well, the Intel GMA drivers already exist, having being released by Intel as fully open-source. And the open source community is (surprise!) working on improving them.
And the Nouveau Project seems to be making quite a lot of progress on NVidia drivers.
I don't think this is quite accurate. As long as it's only NV vs. AMD, they may not have much reason to release anything. However, this creates an opening for a third player, who will start out behind but gain a competitive advantage by releasing open-source driver.
And at this point, Intel is clearly gunning for that spot. They already have an extensive line of integrated graphics, and they'll be making discrete graphics chips soon. If Intel follows through and releases open-source drivers for these new cards, I expect that open-source developers will flock to them in droves and rapidly improve the drivers. This will put more pressure on NV and AMD.
Well, time will tell which of us is right
Very interesting! I hadn't heard this before, but found a thread with some brief mentions of patented optimizations on kerneltrap: http://kerneltrap.org/node/486
Do you happen to have a link to any complete stories that talk about these patents?
This is the same tired, fallacious argument NVidia has been trotting out for years: "Developing GPU drivers is much too complex. Why don't you Linux kids go run along and play with your toys, and let us write the GPU drivers?"
Well, it's just wrong. I have used many reverse-engineered drivers for complex pieces of hardware, and nearly all of them work as well as or better than the original vendor's drivers. Most recently, I had the pleasure of trying out the Broadcom 43xx wireless driver, which was painstakingly reverse engineered in the face of an INCREDIBLY recalcitrant vendor that won't release a shred of documentation on their devices to open source developers, even under NDA! And, surprise, the card works better under Linux with the reverse-engineered driver than it does with the Windows driver, which seems to lose the signal quite often. The bcm43xx developer Michael Buesch has even got some evidence that certain parts of their code are implemented more efficiently and elegantly than the original driver.
Why is this "natural"? Intel releases documentation on the low level stuff about their GPUs, Realtek goes out of its way to help the Linux community with Ethernet and wireless IC documentation, and Linksys has released the complete code for its Linux-based routers. If a business is based on continual innovation--rather than maintaining an entrenched monopoly--it is entirely possible to be successful and open at the same time.
Again, this is only true if Intel holds back some of the documentation necessary to make a good compiler. If they publish complete instruction set information, with accurate timing, cache, and pipeline data (which they have done, for the most part), then making a better compiler is "merely" a question of developer resources and talent.
I suspect that, to the extent that GCC code doesn't run quite as fast as ICC, it's because GCC has higher priorities for its code base, especially ensuring support for an incredible breadth of platforms. GCC has essentially become the reference compiler for a lot of embedded development in particular. Even companies like Broadcom that won't lift a finger to help open source out rely on GCC to build the firmware for their own devices.
Right.
I'm gonna hafta say... give Dell a break for now. It's pretty cool that they've gone from the idea of offering Linux pre-installed to actually shipping it in just a couple of months. There are undoubtedly gonna be a few support issues to resolve. Let's see if this gets noticed and fixed before declaring that Dell has "squandered" all the goodwill that their innovative policy has created.
(Speaking as a guy who just bought his first Dell, and is very happy with it. I bought a Vista system, since I wanted a much cheaper AMD Turion 64 processor, but promptly wiped the drive and installed Ubuntu.)
Yeah... hardware/software working together. Not exactly new. In fact, I believe it is impossible to build a useful stored-program computer without it :-)
This is the most content-free article I've ever read. It's basically a press release with an female professor thrown in to boot. Yay.
Likewise! I've had both cable and DSL off and on since around 2000, and much prefer DSL. It tends to be a lot cheaper and more reliable. None of the DSL connections I've had have ever appeared to just "not work" for more than a minute or two, and that only very rarely (maybe once a month or less). While cable connections seem to flake out for hours at a time, and more frequently.
Plus DSL is a lot cheaper everywhere I've lived. At my parents' home in Michigan, they can get 512 kB DSL for $15/month, and 2 MB for $25, but basic cable access would be like $30/month.
Well... they all offer 64-bit if you upgrade the processors, but the default processor for the laptop is a Pentium Dual-Core (rebranded Intel Core Duo with half the cache). You have to pay about $100 extra to get 64-bit and virtualization. Whereas for $500 they offer the Inspiron 1501, a Windows laptop, with the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 processor which has both those Linux-hacker-friendly features: http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx /inspn_1501?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=FamCustom
Yeah, that's a solid point. I don't do 3D, so I can do just fine with the open-source 2D drivers for ATI cards. If AMD or Nvidia would get their asses in gear and open-source some ATI drivers, it'd be a huge win for those of us who want computers that are:
1. cheap
2. dual-core
3. 64-bit
3. support open-source graphics
Currently, the rock-bottom prices of Turion/Athlon 64 X2 allow me to get 1-3, but Intel graphics are the only fully open-source ones. I know Intel is planning to come out with discrete graphics cards. I wonder if they'll make them for notebooks as well as desktops? Then you could have a laptop with an AMD proc and an Intel GPU, that would sure put the screws on AMD and Nvidia.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. I was attempting to distinguish between the Core Duo, and the Core 2 Duo (which are most of the Intel processors sold today), and I overgeneralized.
The Core don't support EM64T at all, while the Core 2 all do. And actually, a few of the Celeron D/M do support it, though Intel gratuitously disabled it in most of the other Celeron cores that support it.
Yeah, I agree with the idea of sending a message. But it has to be "worth" sending that message: would I rather pay $600 and get a Windows license that I don't want, or choose from a more limited selection, and pay $800 to get a nearly identical system without that Windows license?
Of course, I made the choice that is most personally advantageous to me. I suspect this is a big reason why desktops bundled with Linux haven't caught on: small companies that try and sell Linux-based desktops don't have the same purchasing power and economies of scale as behemoths like Dell and HP which bundle their systems with Windows. So us Linux geeks buy the systems with Windows bundled and just discard it. We save money, but we pay Microsoft as well, so we're not saving as much money as we could in theory.
I think this is a pretty bold and impressive move by Dell... I just hope that they extend it across their entire product line. If the Customization options for every Dell system included a choice like, "Operating System: Ubuntu Linux (subtract $50/$100 from price)", you'd bet there'd soon be a *lot* more people running Ubuntu. Maybe a rough adjustment for those users and for tech support at first, but I believe the Linux community would come out far ahead in adoption in perception in a short amount of time.
... But you can get even better deals on Dells by hunting around at Edealinfo or Fatwallet. I just ordered a Dell laptop yesterday that ended up being significantly cheaper than the e1505n, and yet it comes with Vista Home Premium (it was some kind of educational/affiliate/whatever discount that I found on Fatwallet).
Also, it bugs me that none of the Ubuntu systems have AMD processors! Most of us who run Linux want 64-bit these days, since 64-bit "just works" under Linux, and gives a pretty good performance boost. And among Intel Desktop processors, only the Core 2 Duo support 64-bit, while *ALL* the AMD processors now support 64-bit, from the lowly Sempron on up.
Anyone know if Dell will offer an AMD system with Ubuntu?