Interesting quote
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Nov 22, 2007 3:56 PM EDT |
I find the quote from a Wal-Mart company spokesperson very exciting - "It's been one of the top performing desktop computers on Walmart.com,". Tux is steadily gaining traction in the desktop world. What would be neat to find out is how many units were sold during the Christmas shopping season. |
| tracyanne Nov 22, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
I read the following quote on "desktop linux"Quoting:You people so retarded!!! So what they are sold out! As I've said before do you know how many were on hand in the first place? Do you know how many were returned/exchanged defective? Do you know how many were 'scalped' on ebay? Do you know how many were produced? Point is without those numbers your talking out your ass! Hell I can go over to Newegg, and say Microsoft isn't worried because they have more expensive laptops sold out that has Windows Vista on them. What's interesting here is that obviously there are very few if any being returned, because a company Like WallMart is not going to restock with a product that problematic. What it looks like is that they are very popular and WallMart is seeing good profits. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 23, 2007 10:02 AM EDT |
It's a huge experiment on the part of Wal-Mart, and I give them a lot of credit for taking the risk. I've stared testing gOS, and the distro's whole philosophy seems to be based on the premise that the average user pretty much does everything with the browser -- and they can do it with the help of Google's various tools (mail, apps, YouTube, etc.). Sure, OpenOffice is on there, as is the GIMP, Xine and Rhythmbox, as well as some games, but there's very little application software in gOS when compared to standard Ubuntu. By focusing on the experience through the browser (in this case, Firefox), the whole system is simplified. And since the average Windows user doesn't expect any software to be bundled on their box, it's not a big letdown to the $199-paying customer. Not that they couldn't get a ton of apps with the Add/Remove utility or Synaptic -- because they can -- but it's a deliberately simplified machine. And selling at retail, that's a very radical concept. I know Wal-Mart used to move Lindows boxes in Linspire's pre-lawsuit days, and that was also a radical notion, but selling Linux to consumers at big-box retail is not a normal, accepted thing to be doing in 2007. Even Wal-Mart's Windows Vista-equipped Everex box (selling for an extra $100) ships with the Windows version of OpenOffice. That's something Dell doesn't do. Dell ships Vista boxes to consumers with MS Works -- with no .doc compatibility, of course. Yeah, I know you can download OO, but a new user may not know how or feel confident in doing so. And I'm sure MS doesn't want OpenOffice preloaded on ANYTHING. Wal-Mart may be abusive and overbearing to its suppliers worldwide, but at least that also includes Microsoft. |
| jdixon Nov 23, 2007 10:38 AM EDT |
The true measure of success of Everex's gOS machine will be whether Walmart continues to carry it and whether they start carrying it in all of their stores. If they continue carrying it and start selling it in all of their stores, you'll know it was an unqualified success. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 23, 2007 12:48 PM EDT |
I think the key to gOS' success is for Google to get more involved. Since the distro heavily promotes Google's various sites -- Apps, Gmail, YouTube, Blogger -- it's more of a "Google PC" than anything else out there. Google might want to put some $$$ behind it. And I have nothing whatsoever to base it on, but I get the feeling that the gOS people are steering things in such a way as to make their company an attractive acquisition target for Google. Not that Google couldn't roll out its own Linux-based Google OS ... but they seem to be deliberately not doing that. And no, Android doesn't count ... or maybe it does. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 23, 2007 3:57 PM EDT |
Everybody knows that MS is going to spin this, "People are just installing a pirated copy of Windows on it." I want them completely focused on that idea until they wake up one day and discover that no one has been buying Windows upgrades for a couple months, and their empire is falling down around their ears. |
| tracyanne Nov 23, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:I want them completely focused on that idea until they wake up one day and discover that no one has been buying Windows upgrades for a couple months, and their empire is falling down around their ears. yep, that would be good. |
| bigg Nov 23, 2007 5:00 PM EDT |
> no one has been buying Windows upgrades for a couple months Vista was enough for my wife. She now uses Linux about 90% of the time. It's just more convenient to use something that always works the way it's supposed to, and isn't so blasted slow. |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 23, 2007 6:40 PM EDT |
The biggest complaint I have heard from those I have asked is the blatant selling of computers that can barely run the version of Vista that is on them, usually Vista Home Basic or Home Premium. They get the computer home and in short order realize that they need more RAM to keep it from freezing up for 20-30 seconds every time they open a program, if it opens at all, or that they need to upgrade to Home Premium or Ultimate for more functionality and can't because the computer they have just isn't capable of being upgraded enough to not have the same performance problems they already have. Adding more RAM is easy but if the Processor is not fast enough or the HD is not big enough Windows will not even let you install the upgrade. The average user may not be too overwhelmed to add RAM to their computer but a new HD or Processor, if its even compatible with the motherboard, no way. The same thing happened when XP first came out but it wasn't this bad. People are purposely being sold computers that the retailers know do not have hardware needed to run the OS effectively or at all. The hardware requirements needed to upgrade from Basic to Ultimate cannot be done. You have to but a new computer, and if you buy a license upgrade you can't downgrade it. You have to buy another of that version. |
| bigg Nov 23, 2007 8:00 PM EDT |
> blatant selling of computers that can barely run the version of Vista that is on them Her laptop had 512 MB, which after using XP seemed to have been enough, given that Home Basic doesn't actually do anything new. She's stingy and doesn't want to spend more than necessary. The behavior of Microsoft and the OEMs was fraud, plain and simple. We debated whether to add 512 MB more or a full 1 GB more. It's good we added the full GB. After booting, and without opening any programs, 680-690 MB are being used. No wonder it took forever to start up and there was constant hard drive activity. With a light workload, Vista uses 800 MB, and with a standard workload 950 MB. Even 1 GB would have been insufficient for Home Basic - and that's for someone who doesn't do all that much with the computer. 512 MB is far more than sufficient for any Linux distro. Fedora and Ubuntu run just fine with desktop effects enabled on 512 MB. |
| jdixon Nov 23, 2007 8:22 PM EDT |
> Even 1 GB would have been insufficient for Home Basic - and that's for someone who doesn't do all that much with the computer. I'm telling people who ask for recommendations that the absolute minimum for Vista is 1GB of memory and a 120GB hard drive. I'm recommending 2GB and a 160GB hard drive. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 23, 2007 8:55 PM EDT |
From what I see, you need a dual-core processor, 120 GB + hard drive and 2 GB RAM. I wasn't that involved in it, but was the transition from Windows 2000 to XP this bad? Since there was maybe a year, or at least less than two years, between 2000 and XP, and six years between XP and Vista, that might have exacerbated things in terms of hardware requirements. The other difference: Linux on the desktop back in 2001 was nowhere near where it is in 2007. There's a huge opening for Linux if the major distros can stay light enough to run great on hardware that chokes on Vista. |
| tracyanne Nov 23, 2007 8:58 PM EDT |
Quoting: I'm telling people who ask for recommendations that the absolute minimum for Vista is 1GB of memory and a 120GB hard drive. I'm recommending 2GB and a 160GB hard drive. Good lord I just demoed Linux Mint, from the Live CD, on a 2Gig P4 with 512 Meg of RAM, with Full Compriz Cube enabled and Transparency, with Firefox running Google Maps, and Google Earth on a second desktop, and the machine was nearly as responsive (the programs loading much slower was the only real indication), as a full KDE desktop on Mandriva 2008.0 with the with Compriz Cube enabled. |
| jezuch Nov 24, 2007 3:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Good lord I just demoed Linux Mint, from the Live CD, on a 2Gig P4 with 512 Meg of RAM, (...) and the machine was nearly as responsive This begs a question: who needs faster hardware anyway? (ok, except gamers, but they're a separate bunch of total freaks) I have thought for a few years now that desktop processors are so overwhelmingly underutilised (with typical workloads), that it's not even funny anymore... |
| bigg Nov 24, 2007 4:56 AM EDT |
> you need a dual-core processor Yes, and that is another problem with her laptop, as it has a single-core processor. The CPU regularly sits on 100% usage. A single-core processor is not sufficient. |
| jdixon Nov 24, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
> From what I see, you need a dual-core processor, 120 GB + hard drive and 2 GB RAM. That matches what I've seen also. Since pretty much everything comes with dual core processors anymore, I haven't bothered mentioning it. The memory seems to be the most important thing. 1GB is bare operational (sort of like running XP with 128 MB). 2GB seems to be the minimum to get real work done. |
| ColonelPanik Nov 24, 2007 8:37 AM EDT |
Okay all you dudes and dudetts please read this: http://blog.lobby4linux.com/ Be sure to read the comments! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!