This is often not an obvious one, but it's probably the biggest difference between web adverts and, say, magazine ads. Magazine ads can't identify you when you go to the page they are on. The very act of downloading the image of the advert, however, will log your IP address, the page you came from, the web browser you are using, possibly the Operating system you are using, and maybe even the language setting you have the web browser on.
That's a hell of a lot of marketing information that is being trawled for, without permission from anyone.
So, lets review here: Web advertisers get this information
IP address
Operating System
Browser Choice
Language Setting
Partial Browsing History
Possibly some information from the site you're at.
Magazine advertisers get this information
General area, if not your home address (depends on the magazine and what you check when you fill out the sub. card)
A demographic of readers' interests
Language Preference
Your email address (again depends on the publication and your choices when subscribing)
Well, that doesn't seem so open and shut. Please consider the following though: Web advertisers normally just do a quick demographic of the websites, if even that. They probably rely much more on some informal information gathered by loose observations and a form filled out by the website operator. Magazines almost always have thoroughly developed demographics that are either done in-house or by a professional organization that mines for trends based on the information they've collected on their readers.
While I'm playing devil's advocate I'd like to complain about magazine advertising in general. It's getting entirely too annoying. I rarely see a magazine anymore that doesn't have at least one of those thick cardboard pages with some booklet glued to it. If I leave the page in then the magazine always flips to that page if I try to leave it open. If I take the page out I ruin the binding. Many times the page part isn't perforated so I can't cleanly rip it out. Worst of all, if I don't thorough clear the page of residue after the booklet is remove then it'll stick to the page before, potentially ruining that page. This is after I shake out 10 subscription cards. I'm already subscribed, doesn't the yearly renewal notice suffice?
It keeps coming, though... I just remembered another annoying trend I'm seeing anymore: It wasn't bad enough when you had to start turning to the 10th page to get the table of contents, but now every table of contents spans multiple pages and there's one to six pages of advertisements in between.
I could probably sit and think of others, but I'll sum it up. The point is that advertising in most media has it's extremes. If the advertisers have any way to get more information so they can specifically market to those who will see then they will take it, even if there are privacy concerns. Sometimes we have to just put on our tinfoil hats and deal with it. Sometimes we can simply respond by doing everything we can not to patronize those companies, because inaction on advertisement is probably the best action you can take.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'll add to this that the average person doesn't have to count the entire cost of a printer nor the entire cost of the ink cartridge. Most people - and this may come as a shock to the printing industry - print as many or more text pages as they do photographs.
Also, the obligitory story to confirm the privacy worries are real:
My friend's father used to take "dirty" pictures of local strippers. One day a friend of his was walking behind the shopping center where he had his stuff developed and saw a bunch of photographs laying buy the dumpster. They were his photographs. Someone had developed them and threw them out.
Now, most people don't take or condone the taking of hundreds of photographs of nude women. However, it's certainly something to think about if you decide to take a picture of your girlfriend in her birthday suit for the next time you're on a business trip.
So, what you're saying is: It is cheaper for Dell to support Windows than to not support any operating system.
What on earth makes you think that Dell would support an OS that they didn't sell, install, or have anything to do with? They support their products and services. Don't believe me? Try calling their tech support for a third-party Windows app problem. After an analysis to ensure that they can claim it's the third-party app's problem they will quickly tell you to contact the vendor and that they can no longer help you on this issue. Guess what? On a whitebox PC the OS is a third-party app.*
Anyway, at most you're saying that the "Microsoft Tax" does exist, in the form of claimed support expenses. You're still saying that I pay more than I should for a whitebox PC from Dell because of Microsoft. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
Show me evidence that Dell will support my Gentoo installation and I'll gladly admit you were right. Alternatively, find something where Dell says that it's more expensive to have support staff that can provide trivial amounts of support for FreeDOS than it is to have staff that can support Windows and I'll admit you were right as well. Until then I won't accept those arguments just because you say "Duh." at the end of them.
*aside from FreeDOS that comes with it, but I really doubt that FreeDOS is $30 more per PC to support.
This IS NOT a dupe. I was stating that we've already discussed this. In other words: The Register's article offers ZERO insight into this conversation that was not already put forth during the comments on the first posting of this topic.
This is very much unlike many other similar postings where new information or insight is added to the topic. In fact, it almost seems as if The Register decided to run their story after reading comments on Slashdot.
That doesn't make it a dupe article. It makes it a worthless article that will lead to duplicate trains of thought, if not duplicate comments. If it were merely a duplicate story then I wouldn't find it so worthless. Normally even a duplicate story offers new insight. This one offers some mild flirting with a Dell representative, that's about all that's new.
If the Windows box is cheaper, why not buy it so that you have a Windows license laying around in case you need one. It's not like it's going to hurt you to have a copy laying around in the even that say... you need it to do work from home.
That's beside the point. The point is that this shows evidence of the "Microsoft Tax". You're paying Dell for Windows whether you get it or not. Maybe I already have a Windows license in my home and one is enough. Thinking like that of your post is what would seemingly validate the MS Tax, and contribute to the misconception that they are somehow owed money for each PC bought.
Whitebox PCs should be a commodity that any manufacturer can sell. There is no reason to believe that a whitebox PC will have Windows illegally installed on it. Would you be making the same argument if RedHat managed to convince Dell that every Windows PC should have the negotiated price of a RHEL license included in the price because people may install it on their machines?
Say what? Last I checked, Windows XP came out half a decade ago while the latest version of X came out this year. If you complain about these sorts of comparisons, then compare Windows XP to whatever version of X was released at the same time. And then let us compare again the CURRENT version of X to Vista (Avalon?). Otherwise you're being just as unfair as the poster you criticize.
Say what? You think that KDE of five years ago was more resource intensive than today's? Windows XP has barely changed in that amount of time, where as KDE and Gnome have actually bloated a bit. If anything Windows XP just becomes more favorable by means of resource usage over this time in comparison. Besides, X11 hasn't seen a major revision in how long?
For what it's worth, I was using KDE five years ago and I thought it snappier than XP then, if unpolished. Also, from what I've read about Vista things will only skew further in favor of Linux/X/KDE/Gnome.
You miss the point entirely, though. It wasn't that Dell's PCs are the cheapest or even the only affordable alternative. The point was that Dell's cheap PCs are their bread and butter. It's why people go to Dell, because they are cheaper. However, the further up the line you go then the less they compete so favorably with other manufacturers in price.
Thus, by making the Open Source PCs the ones that don't compete well, they are making a hollow offering of peace to those who don't want to pay Microsoft. An offering that will normally be followed by statements about how little demand there is for this, and later how every one of these boxes gets Windows installed on it anyways.
I realize that this could be avoided by buying parts and making your own, or using a niche vendor's machine, but that's beside the point as well. The point is be that major vendors should just make this an option across the board, on every pc, and let the price reflect the missing OS.
I'm not sure that's true anymore. Sure, Linux will run on a '486SX with 16 megs of RAM. And handle all the usual stuff like apache and sendmail. But Windows 98SE will run on that same machine and give you a GUI, and even run Microsoft Office 2000. Slowly, slowly, I'll grant you; but there's a perception about that shiny flashy graphics are somehow always easier to deal with than simple text-mode commands.
No. Don't compare Linux of today with Windows of yesterday. Compare today's with today's and yesterday's with yesterday's. If you compare Win XP with nearly any X setup you'll find the X is more efficient.
What eats resources is the X11 windowing system. {Though object-oriented, interpreted languages -- such as the JavaScript embedded into web browsers -- probably don't help much either.} It used to be that KDE was horribly bloated, but GNOME is no longer a lightweight alternative. Of course there are less resource-intensive desktops {my favourite, which I will be using in my own distro, is WindowMaker} but most people are expecting a Windows XP clone. Hence, KDE or a heavily-customised GNOME.
I have a Pentium II 266 Compaq laptop that came with Windows 95 installed originally. When it was given to me it didn't work right and had been deemed useless. I brought it back to life with VectorLinux. It runs X (albeit a little slowly) and I normally use XFCE. When my wife uses it she likes IceWM, it has a Windows 95 feel to it. I know people who use full KDE on Pentium 3 600 machines with 256MB of memory, it keeps its pace with Windows easily. Besides, I wasn't even talking about old hardware. I was talking about lower end machines right for sale (new) today. The Dimension 2400 is a 2.4GHz Celeron with 256MB of memory. That will run KDE handily. That's better specs than my old P4 1.7 with 256MB memory, on it you could see a noticeable difference between KDE and Windows.
[I know I'm taking this out of order, but I think my reply is better organized this way] And while I believe that is false, I also know that offering lower-spec hardware with Linux is not going to do anything to challenge that perception; in fact, it will only serve to reinforce it. Most people are clueless and just want a machine with big numbers, under the impression that it must be better {car analogy: they only care about engine cc's, not how far it will go on a litre of fuel}. You're essentially making out that a lower spec machine is only good enough for running Linux, not good enough for Windows.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying, "only offer Linux on the cheap." I'm saying: "Offer your all of your models as OS-independent, especially those that most people will be shopping for. Ohh yeah, and give the value of that Windows license back, definitively." I have no problem with Linux being looked at as more of a premium offering, but why on earth can't a whitebox pc be considered a commodity? I think it's because they don't want to be offering it; they're still charging for Windows on it; and they want to use it as an incentive for force people who want this to buy more expensive hardware. If I'm spending that much money on a PC then I am not spending it at Dell.
I see how you got to that conclusion. Unfortunately, I'm not really convinced, even if it's proven that XP licensing costs $30. I still believe that you are looking at nothing more than a packaging scheme that is done just to get $30 more from the mainstream customers.
Very few customers are going to specifically look for the Open Source desktops (as a whole). Dell knows this. If you look, they started the packaging off differently for their Open Source systems than they did for their Windows ones. They actually start off being more expensive. So, since they also didn't start off with equal hardware, you changed the configurations until they matched in spec. Surprise, price difference!
Well, you're not dealing so much with "this proves the licensing cost," as you are with "this proves that I can stretch my dollar further at McDonald's by getting a value meal." It's all about packaging. Manufacturers just as fast food companies want to reward customers for fitting a mold and making it easier for their workers to make generic things.
Go to your local dealership and spec out a base model car with all the premium model options added, you'll find that, aside from getting wry looks from the salesman, you'll be paying a lot more. Does that prove that the NAV system that comes as an option has more licensing fees than the one in the Luxury package? No. The price difference is specifically related to the manufacturers desire not to have to custom build vehicles if they can avoid it. It's also to try to convince people that getting a little more for another chunk of money is a value. Lastly, it's to try and squeeze money from the rube who doesn't know any better.
I tend to think that Dell is really focusing on that last point. They know that only a certain number of people will compare the two systems. How many paying customers are going to notice or care that there's a $30 difference? Especially when the base model Windows machine is cheaper.
Of course, the problem is that you can still get a cheaper machine with Windows on it. People typically go to Dell because they sell machines cheaply. The numbers will get skewed because few people are even interested in one of these "workstations" versus a "desktop".
When you think about it, we all know that the typical Linux installation is far less resource intensive than Windows, so why don't they sell it on their lesser hardware? I really think it's just pandering to a particular crowd that said, "hey, I want this." Now they say, "look, we have it and you're not buying." Well, of course not, I don't want to pay $1k for a workstation, I wanted a $500 desktop with Linux on it.
I also want to see the price drop if I get a machine without Windows. Microsoft thinks Windows XP is worth $100. Why is it that if I buy an OS free machine the price changes $0?
They are saying: take your crappy, damaged, DRM-encumbered CD, and make a "standard Audio CD" out of it. Then rip it normally. Well, WTF, why not just SELL STANDARD AUDIO CDs TO BEGIN WITH!!!! Idiots!!
While I do agree with you I think their reason was to limit the quality of audio that makes it to the internet. Are the WMA files full CD quality? If you burn from their software is it just 128bps mp3 quality music? If so, then ripping the cd and sharing it would have a significant impact on the quality of the music.
I'm not pretending to know what the quality is, I'm asking and sharing a thought. Please don't flame me for not knowing. I refuse to purchase such products in the first place.
The low profile of FreeBSD when it is used in the enterprise (I'm talking servers, not OSX) is evidence that the GPL does nothing to hinder Linux. With a BSD-style license Linux would have no advantage to developers over BSD and wouldn't be in the position it is now.
No, it's not in principle. Actually, I think that in principle it is a most excellent process. However, in modern practice is has become a stupid process.
No, modern practice is stupid. The process is sane. It may be abused, but it's still sane. Remember that it's much better that a vote be delayed than be pushed through quickly, you give people much more time to go over just what the wording means.
No longer do Senators have to talk what they consider bad legislation to death a-la Mr. Smith goes to Washington, they just refuse to vote and go back to their comfy offices or out to a nice dinner at the Watergate Hotel. No, if it IS bad legislation, then they'll be moved to act to stop it as Jimmy Stewart did.
No, without this they would still not talk about things. Those that really care would try to make a big deal about something in the short time before it was put to vote, but should they fail to get significant support very quickly they would have no way to stop it. Furthermore, since it would be left to a straight up and down vote every time they would have little chance to succeed even with support. A filibuster is defined as a delay, and that's what it is. It says, "Hey, I don't think the majority should be ramrodding this vote through we should delay, talk about it more, and require a larger majority to pass it." That means there is more time to discuss and attempt to sway people away from making a bad decision. There is nothing wrong with that.
It is safe and sane to say that our government should follow this thought process. If we go about our business saying that we should hurry up votes and not ever require more than a straight up and down vote then we are saying that we should accept more easily than reject. NO! The day that becomes the case is the day I leave the country, because it will surely go to hell. Every new congressional class will simply push the majority party's agenda through with absolutely no questions. Why bother trying to appease the Republicans if the Democrats have majority? Our only savior in that system would be a completely split congress or the president. Thus, when the majority of congress is of the same agenda as the president [read: now] then their agenda will get pushed unchallenged. How incredibly wrong.
"Do you really think that is NOT a stupid process? It's great when your party is the one blocking things without effort but when the tide turns, trust me, you'll absolutely hate it."
Correct, see above.
The two party system is what is stupid. If we had at least a third party then you would have to make several agendas match in order for a vote to go through, which would be much more likely to produce a system where people tried to represent their voters instead of push agendas. Even when they did push agendas there would be a lot more effort involved to convince people. Dissent would be easier. That whole lot. Anyway, this paragraph is a little OT and more just my opinion...
The filibuster is required in a two party system, though. You have to force more than a straight up majority sometimes, and you really need to have more time for controversial issues. The filibuster should be frowned upon when it's abused, though. Perhaps it needs some work, but it is definitely needed.
But the filibuster is a bit of a stupid process as well isn't it? It all needs changing as far as I can see.
Giving the minority party a chance to declare that the majority is abusing its status to push through poor legislation is a stupid process? Requiring that a controversial vote have a 2/3 majority must be simply idiotic! I mean, think of agendas that could be pushed without it.
I can't stress enough how big of a difference a clean install is on a Dell versus the crappy setup they ship the machine with.
I'm with you and the parent post, the first thing I do when I get a machine is wipe the drive and reinstall. That is done whether this is a new installation or an old installation on a PC that's brought to me with problems. The result is always a faster starting, faster running, more stable machine.
Normally, when it's someone else's computer, I use that opportunity to change their settings around to "safer" ones and educate them a little. Things like no ActiveX in the Internet Zone (have them use Trusted Sites) and a separate Admin account for all the installation work. Most of those who I help never come back with complaints of a slow PC. They see that it runs faster than new and they then try to listen to my advice.
Since you mentioned the Jetta in your previous post, I figured you liked it enough that it would be an option for you, aside from the price.
No, I mentioned it because I forgot the Golf has a TDI model, the absence of which would make the Jetta TDI the cheapest new diesel powered car there is.
Plus, the Golf is a 5-door (or 3-door) hatchback, just like a Saab! ; )
Yes, but it's a two box design that makes it more compact. The advantage that the Prius has over it is spaciousness. I can't deny the Golf/Jetta TDI's viability for consumers, and I really appreciate VW's dedication to offering diesel powered vehicles to the public. Kudos to them.
Before a whole bunch of us scream "dupe," yes, we've seen this before, but this time it's the mugs that are phoning the bar.
Slight variations on the same idea really shouldn't be so newsworthy. (hmm, I read a lot about iPod variants though...) Especially if the idea is an answer to a question that no one is asking.
Why can't the bartender nag me when my coaster thinks my cup is empty? or maybe How does Stevie Wonder know when to ask me if I need a refill?
It's harder to find, but not impossible. If you are anywhere near an interstate highway, you can always find a station because the trucks need it. It's available in rural areas because farmers use it for their trucks. My dad had a 1983 diesel Cutlass Ciera when I was a kid and we never had a problem finding a place to fill it up. Even using the truck pumps.
From my experience working at gas stations: Only the rare person can use a truck pump into a car tank and not make a mess. The nozzle is too large, so you have to carefully position it.
My friend has a 1982 Mercedes 240D. Sure, he has no problems on his normal commutes to find the stations that have diesel, the problem is road trips. You have to be sure not to get too low because you can't always count on having diesel at the next station, and sometimes you'll find stations marked diesel but they only have truck pumps (see above).
The alternator has been the 240D's bane. He ended up driving with no lights on a dark and rainy night from Queens to NJ because he kept having problems with the battery dying, which makes alternate side parking a real pain in the ass. It's been replaced 3 times in the last few years. Otherwise the car hasn't had a single power train problem.
Bad question. Eliminate "in the US" from that question and get thousands of answers.
No, a bad question would be for me to have omitted "in the US" and assume that those cars aren't huge sellers elsewhere. While we're on the subject, who do you think the news reports really were for? Certainly not most other countries where there is little interest in hybrids because diesel powered vehicles are cheaper to produce.
Just because they cannot be found on a US dealer's lot does not mean they do not exist, and with very little reason why they could not be brought over.
Only billions of dollars worth of testing and certification, at this point. There are models that could simply have a diesel bolted in as they do in Europe and elsewhere, but a vast majority of the vehicles sold in the US are not world cars. So you're looking at a lot of time in R&D before major auto manufacturers would be able to put out a diesel version of their cars, whether that be in certifying a euro-spec model with US emissions and safety test, or making sure that the design is sound on an existing model with a diesel power train bolted in. I even almost forgot: diesel motor assembly lines would have to be tooled in North America for it to be truly cost effective, otherwise you'd lose your cost savings in importation.
Of course the US would have to hurry up and go with lower-sulfur diesel fuel, but that should have been done long ago in the name of better fuel mileage.
I don't know why our government can't see the forest for the trees and do this, but the point is that they haven't. In fact, California is just making things worse by enacting regulations that stifle all but the cleanest diesel engines running on low sulfur fuel. I'm much more interested in bio-diesel. Even if it may be a bit more expensive it will help our economy by supporting our farmers (maybe even to the point that we don't have to subsidize them constantly, but that's another topic) and lessening our dependency on foreign oil. The problem is that none of that is here and now. Hybrids are here and now, and they are financially viable depending on your priorities. Only the Golf TDI beats them on initial price.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but honestly I've followed this issue pretty closely. I wanted to buy a diesel a few years back, but the only viable solution for me was a VW and I didn't like it as a personal choice. I've salivated over various European models (both diesel and gasoline powered) for years. Right now, if I were to buy a car purely for it's efficiency my money would go to Toyota. Their price is right and their packaging is excellent, if a bit on the ugly side. You can get more car for that amount of money, but then you send more money to the oil companies. You can get cars that sip for less, but their packaging leaves a bit to offer. A year or two down the road and I'm positive that my options, and thus my opinion, will be different, but for now that's pretty much where I am.
Good call, I missed that one. Still, that's a very limited selection. That's appropriate because, as a whole, diesel powered non-commercial vehicles are of quite limited selection in the US.
For what it's worth, I would choose a Prius over a Golf TDI even with the $1500 difference in price. I've driven and been a passenger in a few Golfs and I've never been a fan. I haven't been in a 2006 Golf, but the previous models all seemed crouded inside without a whole lot of usable space. Then again, probably anything would beat driving around in a gimpy looking Insight. The Golf certainly wins that comparison.
As everyone will mention bio-diesel now, I'd like to play devil's advocate instead.
If I want to buy a new car right now then certain hybrids make sense in their own ways.
First is price. What diesel powered car is available in the US for $20,000? The Jetta isn't. Most other economy cars aren't available as diesel. However, both the Prius and the new Civic hybrid are right at that $20k mark. I'd have to pay almost $2,000 more to get into a Jetta TDI.
Second is interior. Have you ever been in a Prius? It has a bit of quirk to its interior, but it is still quite nice and very roomy. The last figure I recall it had more interior volume than a Camry. Plus, it's a five door vehicle. Ask any Saab enthusiast about how versatile that is versus having a trunk.
Third is dealing with diesel. Right now diesel is pushed aside in American society. Yes, that's a shame. The problem is that it's a huge hurdle to overcome. The stigma of smelly diesel and noxious exhaust is alive and well. It's harder to find, too. Not every station has it, sometimes stations have it but only have truck pumps. Normally, those who have car pumps only have one or two tops.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diesel. It's just not as viable right here and now. Blame California for the emissions regulations. Go thank Minnesota for requiring that diesel be part bio-diesel.
As an aside, I'd like to say that there is a political reason to spend a little extra on your vehicle to save on gas. Depending on your views, many would think that it's better to send their money to Japan (or wherever the car is made) than it is to Saudi Arabia.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a hell of a lot of marketing information that is being trawled for, without permission from anyone.
So, lets review here:
Web advertisers get this information
Magazine advertisers get this information
Well, that doesn't seem so open and shut. Please consider the following though: Web advertisers normally just do a quick demographic of the websites, if even that. They probably rely much more on some informal information gathered by loose observations and a form filled out by the website operator. Magazines almost always have thoroughly developed demographics that are either done in-house or by a professional organization that mines for trends based on the information they've collected on their readers.
While I'm playing devil's advocate I'd like to complain about magazine advertising in general. It's getting entirely too annoying. I rarely see a magazine anymore that doesn't have at least one of those thick cardboard pages with some booklet glued to it. If I leave the page in then the magazine always flips to that page if I try to leave it open. If I take the page out I ruin the binding. Many times the page part isn't perforated so I can't cleanly rip it out. Worst of all, if I don't thorough clear the page of residue after the booklet is remove then it'll stick to the page before, potentially ruining that page. This is after I shake out 10 subscription cards. I'm already subscribed, doesn't the yearly renewal notice suffice?
It keeps coming, though... I just remembered another annoying trend I'm seeing anymore: It wasn't bad enough when you had to start turning to the 10th page to get the table of contents, but now every table of contents spans multiple pages and there's one to six pages of advertisements in between.
I could probably sit and think of others, but I'll sum it up. The point is that advertising in most media has it's extremes. If the advertisers have any way to get more information so they can specifically market to those who will see then they will take it, even if there are privacy concerns. Sometimes we have to just put on our tinfoil hats and deal with it. Sometimes we can simply respond by doing everything we can not to patronize those companies, because inaction on advertisement is probably the best action you can take.
2 megapixel is impressive quantity. For quality you have to see the content of the pictures to judge their image's correctness.
Also, the obligitory story to confirm the privacy worries are real:
My friend's father used to take "dirty" pictures of local strippers. One day a friend of his was walking behind the shopping center where he had his stuff developed and saw a bunch of photographs laying buy the dumpster. They were his photographs. Someone had developed them and threw them out.
Now, most people don't take or condone the taking of hundreds of photographs of nude women. However, it's certainly something to think about if you decide to take a picture of your girlfriend in her birthday suit for the next time you're on a business trip.
What on earth makes you think that Dell would support an OS that they didn't sell, install, or have anything to do with? They support their products and services. Don't believe me? Try calling their tech support for a third-party Windows app problem. After an analysis to ensure that they can claim it's the third-party app's problem they will quickly tell you to contact the vendor and that they can no longer help you on this issue. Guess what? On a whitebox PC the OS is a third-party app.*
Anyway, at most you're saying that the "Microsoft Tax" does exist, in the form of claimed support expenses. You're still saying that I pay more than I should for a whitebox PC from Dell because of Microsoft. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
Show me evidence that Dell will support my Gentoo installation and I'll gladly admit you were right. Alternatively, find something where Dell says that it's more expensive to have support staff that can provide trivial amounts of support for FreeDOS than it is to have staff that can support Windows and I'll admit you were right as well. Until then I won't accept those arguments just because you say "Duh." at the end of them.
*aside from FreeDOS that comes with it, but I really doubt that FreeDOS is $30 more per PC to support.
This IS NOT a dupe. I was stating that we've already discussed this. In other words: The Register's article offers ZERO insight into this conversation that was not already put forth during the comments on the first posting of this topic.
This is very much unlike many other similar postings where new information or insight is added to the topic. In fact, it almost seems as if The Register decided to run their story after reading comments on Slashdot.
That doesn't make it a dupe article. It makes it a worthless article that will lead to duplicate trains of thought, if not duplicate comments. If it were merely a duplicate story then I wouldn't find it so worthless. Normally even a duplicate story offers new insight. This one offers some mild flirting with a Dell representative, that's about all that's new.
That's beside the point. The point is that this shows evidence of the "Microsoft Tax". You're paying Dell for Windows whether you get it or not. Maybe I already have a Windows license in my home and one is enough. Thinking like that of your post is what would seemingly validate the MS Tax, and contribute to the misconception that they are somehow owed money for each PC bought.
Whitebox PCs should be a commodity that any manufacturer can sell. There is no reason to believe that a whitebox PC will have Windows illegally installed on it. Would you be making the same argument if RedHat managed to convince Dell that every Windows PC should have the negotiated price of a RHEL license included in the price because people may install it on their machines?
No, not a dupe. It's just an article that has already been debated in our forums. That is with slashdot providing more insight, sadly.
Didn't we already cover all of this from here:4 7&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=137&mode=thread&ci d=13721513
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1643
Say what? You think that KDE of five years ago was more resource intensive than today's? Windows XP has barely changed in that amount of time, where as KDE and Gnome have actually bloated a bit. If anything Windows XP just becomes more favorable by means of resource usage over this time in comparison. Besides, X11 hasn't seen a major revision in how long?
For what it's worth, I was using KDE five years ago and I thought it snappier than XP then, if unpolished. Also, from what I've read about Vista things will only skew further in favor of Linux/X/KDE/Gnome.
Out of context, yeah, that's what I said.
You miss the point entirely, though. It wasn't that Dell's PCs are the cheapest or even the only affordable alternative. The point was that Dell's cheap PCs are their bread and butter. It's why people go to Dell, because they are cheaper. However, the further up the line you go then the less they compete so favorably with other manufacturers in price.
Thus, by making the Open Source PCs the ones that don't compete well, they are making a hollow offering of peace to those who don't want to pay Microsoft. An offering that will normally be followed by statements about how little demand there is for this, and later how every one of these boxes gets Windows installed on it anyways.
I realize that this could be avoided by buying parts and making your own, or using a niche vendor's machine, but that's beside the point as well. The point is be that major vendors should just make this an option across the board, on every pc, and let the price reflect the missing OS.
No. Don't compare Linux of today with Windows of yesterday. Compare today's with today's and yesterday's with yesterday's. If you compare Win XP with nearly any X setup you'll find the X is more efficient.
What eats resources is the X11 windowing system. {Though object-oriented, interpreted languages -- such as the JavaScript embedded into web browsers -- probably don't help much either.} It used to be that KDE was horribly bloated, but GNOME is no longer a lightweight alternative. Of course there are less resource-intensive desktops {my favourite, which I will be using in my own distro, is WindowMaker} but most people are expecting a Windows XP clone. Hence, KDE or a heavily-customised GNOME.
I have a Pentium II 266 Compaq laptop that came with Windows 95 installed originally. When it was given to me it didn't work right and had been deemed useless. I brought it back to life with VectorLinux. It runs X (albeit a little slowly) and I normally use XFCE. When my wife uses it she likes IceWM, it has a Windows 95 feel to it. I know people who use full KDE on Pentium 3 600 machines with 256MB of memory, it keeps its pace with Windows easily. Besides, I wasn't even talking about old hardware. I was talking about lower end machines right for sale (new) today. The Dimension 2400 is a 2.4GHz Celeron with 256MB of memory. That will run KDE handily. That's better specs than my old P4 1.7 with 256MB memory, on it you could see a noticeable difference between KDE and Windows.
[I know I'm taking this out of order, but I think my reply is better organized this way]
And while I believe that is false, I also know that offering lower-spec hardware with Linux is not going to do anything to challenge that perception; in fact, it will only serve to reinforce it. Most people are clueless and just want a machine with big numbers, under the impression that it must be better {car analogy: they only care about engine cc's, not how far it will go on a litre of fuel}. You're essentially making out that a lower spec machine is only good enough for running Linux, not good enough for Windows.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying, "only offer Linux on the cheap." I'm saying: "Offer your all of your models as OS-independent, especially those that most people will be shopping for. Ohh yeah, and give the value of that Windows license back, definitively." I have no problem with Linux being looked at as more of a premium offering, but why on earth can't a whitebox pc be considered a commodity? I think it's because they don't want to be offering it; they're still charging for Windows on it; and they want to use it as an incentive for force people who want this to buy more expensive hardware. If I'm spending that much money on a PC then I am not spending it at Dell.
Very few customers are going to specifically look for the Open Source desktops (as a whole). Dell knows this. If you look, they started the packaging off differently for their Open Source systems than they did for their Windows ones. They actually start off being more expensive. So, since they also didn't start off with equal hardware, you changed the configurations until they matched in spec. Surprise, price difference!
Well, you're not dealing so much with "this proves the licensing cost," as you are with "this proves that I can stretch my dollar further at McDonald's by getting a value meal." It's all about packaging. Manufacturers just as fast food companies want to reward customers for fitting a mold and making it easier for their workers to make generic things.
Go to your local dealership and spec out a base model car with all the premium model options added, you'll find that, aside from getting wry looks from the salesman, you'll be paying a lot more. Does that prove that the NAV system that comes as an option has more licensing fees than the one in the Luxury package? No. The price difference is specifically related to the manufacturers desire not to have to custom build vehicles if they can avoid it. It's also to try to convince people that getting a little more for another chunk of money is a value. Lastly, it's to try and squeeze money from the rube who doesn't know any better.
I tend to think that Dell is really focusing on that last point. They know that only a certain number of people will compare the two systems. How many paying customers are going to notice or care that there's a $30 difference? Especially when the base model Windows machine is cheaper.
As for the license difference, I'll point out how he's off the mark in a reply to him.
When you think about it, we all know that the typical Linux installation is far less resource intensive than Windows, so why don't they sell it on their lesser hardware? I really think it's just pandering to a particular crowd that said, "hey, I want this." Now they say, "look, we have it and you're not buying." Well, of course not, I don't want to pay $1k for a workstation, I wanted a $500 desktop with Linux on it.
I also want to see the price drop if I get a machine without Windows. Microsoft thinks Windows XP is worth $100. Why is it that if I buy an OS free machine the price changes $0?
While I do agree with you I think their reason was to limit the quality of audio that makes it to the internet. Are the WMA files full CD quality? If you burn from their software is it just 128bps mp3 quality music? If so, then ripping the cd and sharing it would have a significant impact on the quality of the music.
I'm not pretending to know what the quality is, I'm asking and sharing a thought. Please don't flame me for not knowing. I refuse to purchase such products in the first place.
The low profile of FreeBSD when it is used in the enterprise (I'm talking servers, not OSX) is evidence that the GPL does nothing to hinder Linux. With a BSD-style license Linux would have no advantage to developers over BSD and wouldn't be in the position it is now.
No, modern practice is stupid. The process is sane. It may be abused, but it's still sane. Remember that it's much better that a vote be delayed than be pushed through quickly, you give people much more time to go over just what the wording means.
No longer do Senators have to talk what they consider bad legislation to death a-la Mr. Smith goes to Washington, they just refuse to vote and go back to their comfy offices or out to a nice dinner at the Watergate Hotel. No, if it IS bad legislation, then they'll be moved to act to stop it as Jimmy Stewart did.
No, without this they would still not talk about things. Those that really care would try to make a big deal about something in the short time before it was put to vote, but should they fail to get significant support very quickly they would have no way to stop it. Furthermore, since it would be left to a straight up and down vote every time they would have little chance to succeed even with support. A filibuster is defined as a delay, and that's what it is. It says, "Hey, I don't think the majority should be ramrodding this vote through we should delay, talk about it more, and require a larger majority to pass it." That means there is more time to discuss and attempt to sway people away from making a bad decision. There is nothing wrong with that.
It is safe and sane to say that our government should follow this thought process. If we go about our business saying that we should hurry up votes and not ever require more than a straight up and down vote then we are saying that we should accept more easily than reject. NO! The day that becomes the case is the day I leave the country, because it will surely go to hell. Every new congressional class will simply push the majority party's agenda through with absolutely no questions. Why bother trying to appease the Republicans if the Democrats have majority? Our only savior in that system would be a completely split congress or the president. Thus, when the majority of congress is of the same agenda as the president [read: now] then their agenda will get pushed unchallenged. How incredibly wrong.
"Do you really think that is NOT a stupid process? It's great when your party is the one blocking things without effort but when the tide turns, trust me, you'll absolutely hate it."
Correct, see above.
The two party system is what is stupid. If we had at least a third party then you would have to make several agendas match in order for a vote to go through, which would be much more likely to produce a system where people tried to represent their voters instead of push agendas. Even when they did push agendas there would be a lot more effort involved to convince people. Dissent would be easier. That whole lot. Anyway, this paragraph is a little OT and more just my opinion...
The filibuster is required in a two party system, though. You have to force more than a straight up majority sometimes, and you really need to have more time for controversial issues. The filibuster should be frowned upon when it's abused, though. Perhaps it needs some work, but it is definitely needed.
Giving the minority party a chance to declare that the majority is abusing its status to push through poor legislation is a stupid process? Requiring that a controversial vote have a 2/3 majority must be simply idiotic! I mean, think of agendas that could be pushed without it.
I'm with you and the parent post, the first thing I do when I get a machine is wipe the drive and reinstall. That is done whether this is a new installation or an old installation on a PC that's brought to me with problems. The result is always a faster starting, faster running, more stable machine.
Normally, when it's someone else's computer, I use that opportunity to change their settings around to "safer" ones and educate them a little. Things like no ActiveX in the Internet Zone (have them use Trusted Sites) and a separate Admin account for all the installation work. Most of those who I help never come back with complaints of a slow PC. They see that it runs faster than new and they then try to listen to my advice.
No, I mentioned it because I forgot the Golf has a TDI model, the absence of which would make the Jetta TDI the cheapest new diesel powered car there is.
Plus, the Golf is a 5-door (or 3-door) hatchback, just like a Saab! ; )
Yes, but it's a two box design that makes it more compact. The advantage that the Prius has over it is spaciousness. I can't deny the Golf/Jetta TDI's viability for consumers, and I really appreciate VW's dedication to offering diesel powered vehicles to the public. Kudos to them.
Slight variations on the same idea really shouldn't be so newsworthy. (hmm, I read a lot about iPod variants though...) Especially if the idea is an answer to a question that no one is asking.
Why can't the bartender nag me when my coaster thinks my cup is empty?
or maybe
How does Stevie Wonder know when to ask me if I need a refill?
From my experience working at gas stations: Only the rare person can use a truck pump into a car tank and not make a mess. The nozzle is too large, so you have to carefully position it.
My friend has a 1982 Mercedes 240D. Sure, he has no problems on his normal commutes to find the stations that have diesel, the problem is road trips. You have to be sure not to get too low because you can't always count on having diesel at the next station, and sometimes you'll find stations marked diesel but they only have truck pumps (see above).
The alternator has been the 240D's bane. He ended up driving with no lights on a dark and rainy night from Queens to NJ because he kept having problems with the battery dying, which makes alternate side parking a real pain in the ass. It's been replaced 3 times in the last few years. Otherwise the car hasn't had a single power train problem.
No, a bad question would be for me to have omitted "in the US" and assume that those cars aren't huge sellers elsewhere. While we're on the subject, who do you think the news reports really were for? Certainly not most other countries where there is little interest in hybrids because diesel powered vehicles are cheaper to produce.
Just because they cannot be found on a US dealer's lot does not mean they do not exist, and with very little reason why they could not be brought over.
Only billions of dollars worth of testing and certification, at this point. There are models that could simply have a diesel bolted in as they do in Europe and elsewhere, but a vast majority of the vehicles sold in the US are not world cars. So you're looking at a lot of time in R&D before major auto manufacturers would be able to put out a diesel version of their cars, whether that be in certifying a euro-spec model with US emissions and safety test, or making sure that the design is sound on an existing model with a diesel power train bolted in. I even almost forgot: diesel motor assembly lines would have to be tooled in North America for it to be truly cost effective, otherwise you'd lose your cost savings in importation.
Of course the US would have to hurry up and go with lower-sulfur diesel fuel, but that should have been done long ago in the name of better fuel mileage.
I don't know why our government can't see the forest for the trees and do this, but the point is that they haven't. In fact, California is just making things worse by enacting regulations that stifle all but the cleanest diesel engines running on low sulfur fuel. I'm much more interested in bio-diesel. Even if it may be a bit more expensive it will help our economy by supporting our farmers (maybe even to the point that we don't have to subsidize them constantly, but that's another topic) and lessening our dependency on foreign oil. The problem is that none of that is here and now. Hybrids are here and now, and they are financially viable depending on your priorities. Only the Golf TDI beats them on initial price.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but honestly I've followed this issue pretty closely. I wanted to buy a diesel a few years back, but the only viable solution for me was a VW and I didn't like it as a personal choice. I've salivated over various European models (both diesel and gasoline powered) for years. Right now, if I were to buy a car purely for it's efficiency my money would go to Toyota. Their price is right and their packaging is excellent, if a bit on the ugly side. You can get more car for that amount of money, but then you send more money to the oil companies. You can get cars that sip for less, but their packaging leaves a bit to offer. A year or two down the road and I'm positive that my options, and thus my opinion, will be different, but for now that's pretty much where I am.
For what it's worth, I would choose a Prius over a Golf TDI even with the $1500 difference in price. I've driven and been a passenger in a few Golfs and I've never been a fan. I haven't been in a 2006 Golf, but the previous models all seemed crouded inside without a whole lot of usable space. Then again, probably anything would beat driving around in a gimpy looking Insight. The Golf certainly wins that comparison.
If I want to buy a new car right now then certain hybrids make sense in their own ways.
First is price. What diesel powered car is available in the US for $20,000? The Jetta isn't. Most other economy cars aren't available as diesel. However, both the Prius and the new Civic hybrid are right at that $20k mark. I'd have to pay almost $2,000 more to get into a Jetta TDI.
Second is interior. Have you ever been in a Prius? It has a bit of quirk to its interior, but it is still quite nice and very roomy. The last figure I recall it had more interior volume than a Camry. Plus, it's a five door vehicle. Ask any Saab enthusiast about how versatile that is versus having a trunk.
Third is dealing with diesel. Right now diesel is pushed aside in American society. Yes, that's a shame. The problem is that it's a huge hurdle to overcome. The stigma of smelly diesel and noxious exhaust is alive and well. It's harder to find, too. Not every station has it, sometimes stations have it but only have truck pumps. Normally, those who have car pumps only have one or two tops.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diesel. It's just not as viable right here and now. Blame California for the emissions regulations. Go thank Minnesota for requiring that diesel be part bio-diesel.
As an aside, I'd like to say that there is a political reason to spend a little extra on your vehicle to save on gas. Depending on your views, many would think that it's better to send their money to Japan (or wherever the car is made) than it is to Saudi Arabia.