backtop

Print 84 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Mar 13 at 10:49 AM

The previous model Everex gPC, no longer in stores due to "poor sales."

The second-generation gPC2 - available online only, and selling quite well there.
The Everex gPC2 and Cloudbook will only be avaiable online, due to lackluster brick-and-mortar sales

While consumer-oriented Linux has been on a rise of late due to healthy sales of the ASUS Eee PC, and Dell which offers a range of notebooks and desktops preloaded with Ubuntu on their website, the store shelves don't quite seem ready for the March of the Penguins to reach their desktops.

Wal-Mart, the sole brick-and-mortar retailer of Everex's $199 gPC, has effectively pulled the Linux-based machine off its store shelves, citing a lack of demand. Oddly enough, the in-store supplies of the gPC were sold out across the approximately 600 stores that received shipments -- but Wal-Mart spokesperson Melissa O'Brien stated that "This really wasn't what our customers were looking for."

Online buyers didn't appear to share these feelings, and the Wal-Mart.com site is now offering the second-generation gPC2 for sale, in addition to Everex's CloudBook, an ultraportable Linux laptop aiming to cut into the Eee PC's market.

With competition in the low-budget PC market heating up in 2008, the lack of licensing fees could mean that Linux will be found on many more desktops and laptops -- but if the sales of the gPC are any indication, it may still be some time before it gains a serious foothold in the mainstream retail market.

According to Net Applications, Linux held on to only 0.67% market share in January 2008. This figure pales in comparison to OS X which commanded 7.57% of the market and Windows which continues to outshine all with 91.46% of the OS market.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Linux is not a consumer OS
By Spivonious on 3/12/2008 1:38:11 PM , Rating: 5
No matter which distro is installed, Linux will never be a consumer OS. Why? It doesn't run any of the programs you can buy in the store. Before the Linux crowd comes in and says you can download everything you need, the average consumer doesn't know that. They say "I need MS Office" not "I need a word processor and spreadsheet app." Their grandparent buys the latest Hannah Montana game but whoops, it won't install on the new gPC.

The only place Linux could work is a stripped-down ultra-mobile machine ala EeePC, where the basic functions are already installed and there is no need for anything else.




RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Chris Peredun on 3/12/2008 1:43:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No matter which distro is installed, Linux will never be a consumer OS. Why? It doesn't run any of the programs you can buy in the store.


And there will never be any programs that you can buy in the store for Linux, because it will never be a popular consumer OS.

Anyone for a vicious circle?


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By tastyratz on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By kattanna on 3/12/2008 2:02:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If MS were to disappear off the face of the earth today most likely we would see


80%+ of the people will still be using XP 10 years from now.

there.. that is more correct. The biggest problem with either linux or OSX is that they do not run most of the software made in this world.

a perfect example is this.. who brags about their LEET linux/OSX gaming rig?


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By drzoo2 on 3/12/2008 3:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
To say that an operating system doesn't run most of the software out there is not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the software vendors for not providing support. You should see what impact not running antivirus, spyware, bloatware programs have on UT2004. Which by the way has a native Linux port. If every game developer would provide support I would blow away my XP partition in a second....not like M$ is going to allow that.

z


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By TomZ on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Omega215D on 3/12/2008 8:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
After running a Mac OSX Leopard machine I tried installing stuff that can be installed on both Mac and Windows and they won't install because they require Classic Environment. I couldn't run stuff like Guitar Method Intermediate and some software that came with my text books. When I installed Vista I had no problem installing the very same programs and they run as well as they did in XP and 98 SE.

Just food for thought.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By tastyratz on 3/12/2008 5:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just like we had a lot of people using 98 for awhile.
I'm sure they would still have a bunch of old licenses kicking around but new machines would have to be sold with something.
My point was that ms currently dominates the market but even if they didn't Linux would not just take over and dominate. The worse the microsoft product is made linux gets a larger share but its still dwarfed by the alternatives. If there was no choice people would buy new machines with osx before they went with a *nix install.

Note when I said osx would gain more market than ms I meant to say vs Linux.
I prefer Linux myself but its a far cry away from mentally incompetent compatibility


By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2008 5:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Omigosh, I was doing some research into it, and guess what? There are a handfull of mods for Windows 98 SE that turn it into a livable platform (not good, but definitely livable).
http://www.msfn.org/board/Installation-Guide-Win98...


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By mindless1 on 3/12/2008 10:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
You might be right in the very short term but in the longer term that isn't a safe assumption to make.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By bearxor on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By mcmilljb on 3/12/2008 2:24:10 PM , Rating: 1
They still need a 2 button mouse on everything. It's kind of silly to people just want to change how they do everything just to switch from a PC to Mac. I think it's cool how Apple wants to improve how you do things, but not everyone will want the change or appreciate it.

2 button >> 1 button
Some people might actually want a mouse with more than 2 buttons.


By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2008 5:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's like the people who pay a monthly fee to play games on Linux (via Cedega).

Wine-doors is not nearly complete, but it not only looks quite promising but is also quite free.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 2:24:50 PM , Rating: 3
He is an idiot, but ergonomically speaking, a one button mouse does not really make sense. They are only doing to to distinguish themselves from PC, nothing more. You can give really any argument you want, but two buttons two fingers will always be easier on your brain and fingers.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Omega215D on 3/12/2008 8:38:48 PM , Rating: 1
I find the two finger tap for right click on my MacBook quite good to use. Instead of reaching for the second button on a laptop I just tap two fingers and swipe down with two fingers should I want to scroll.

Now in saying that I still keep a Logitech V400 around should I want to use a mouse that works well with both OSX and Vista (which one mouse button or two finger tap doesn't work) since it contains both physical right and left clicks.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Anything you can do with a two button mouse you can do with a one button mouse in OS X.

True, but it's about efficiency. Right-click context menus, a mainstay of GUI design, are very useful and helpful. Sure, you could select an item by clicking it and then navigating to and clicking again to open a menu, but the single right-click is much nicer.

Besides, what's the harm done in having two buttons? There's no disadvantage, except for a few pennies of cost.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By darkpaw on 3/12/2008 3:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I hate any mouse with less then the primary 5 buttons. Sure you can perform any of those features using other methods, but it really is easier, faster, and much easier to have separate buttons.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 5:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is still a learning curve compared to a two button mouse. Two buttons Two fingers, no extra thinking or moving required.


By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2008 5:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
But the buttons don't have to be used:

1. For learning, you have the two huge buttons.

2. For the mildly adventurous, or the aclimated; there is a wheel in the middle of the mouse, and the wheel can be used to do some specific tasks.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Oregonian2 on 3/12/2008 8:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I've a five button mouse (uSoft) at home and like it a lot. I've a three-button one at work and it's okay but "makes more work". Two might be manageable, but one, forget it.

P.S.- Scroll wheel is mandatory too, even in the barely acceptable 2-button case. For me anyway.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Rike on 3/12/2008 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I for one dont like using 1 mouse button

Then don't. I'm using a 5 button MS mouse on the Mac I'm posting this from. It works very well.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By rcc on 3/12/2008 5:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one dont like using 1 mouse button


Funny, but a bit like saying the the PC will never have more that 640kB of RAM.

You've been able to get a multibutton mouse for a Mac for over 20 years.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 1:53:41 PM , Rating: 4
Yea, it sucks, but quite frankly If you want to break into a market dominated by your competitor, you better have a good plan to steal their customers and make switching easy. If they would put WINE on all the Linux distros for emulating a windows API environment for windows programs and it actually works in 90% or more cases, then they might have a chance. As it stands your forced to use "alternatives" because the real deal doesn't work on Linux. People don't want to use tons of alternatives (or in many cases stuff for kids, programs, games, etc... there are no alternatives).

It's a chicken and egg scenario. Linux is a solution looking for a problem on the desktop home user market.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 2:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not that this is an alternative for most users, but i have given up on using wine to access windows programs. RDP (remote desktop) seems to be a great solution, it even supports sound when connecting to winxp/server2k3. As long as you are running over a network it works great.

Whats even better is a new feature in RDP that allows you to call just a window or program to the screen, making it appear as though it is actually on your desktop. As i find openoffice terrible for anymore than typing up a letter, I merely click the Word shortcut on my screen and there comes Word 2007 in full color, and I can barely tell its not being locally run. I know this doesn't work for games, but its a great solution to access many windows apps.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 3:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt. I can't stand open office. I used Office 2003 by the time Open Office made it to 2.0 and shortly after moved to Office 2007. I don't know how you could put up with Open Office for daily use, It's like looking at Office 97 (strip down) when the guy next to you is on Office 2007. But hey what do you expect from a free product? =/


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2008 5:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, geek that I am, I like the Open Office interface. It is simple and unobtrusive, and offers the same functionality as a program that costs infinitely more.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 6:36:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is simple and unobtrusive, and offers the same functionality as a program that costs infinitely more.

No, far from it infact. It offers the same "very basic" functionality. If you want to get into advanced features, or really getting your mileage out of it, Open Office isn't even a competitor.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By robinthakur on 3/13/2008 7:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
That sounds amazing! And its free!! Does it offer full SharePoint integration like Office 2007? If so I might just dump my Office 2007 which is just the most awful program imaginable and certainly offers no perceptable benefits over this free and fully functional software...none whatsoever </sarcasm>


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By kmmatney on 3/13/2008 12:53:25 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly how I have felt about openoffice so far - it's stuck at the office97 level. It's great when you want office-like functionality on a spare computer, though.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2008 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
If there was just one linux, it might have a chance. As long as it remains a highly disjointed product with everyone and their mother having their own distro, it will remain a niche OS outside of the server space.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 2:01:17 PM , Rating: 3
Linux dug itself into a hole from the day it was released. Don't get me wrong, I love nix and i run it on all my computers except for me MCE machine. But an OS can not flurish based on open source software. There is no money to be made in linux software development, you have to give it away for free, or at least have a fully functional free version. While this may appeal to some, it will never appeal to the big software devs out there. Windows is a proven business OS, regardless of its downfalls, it will remain the top dog unless the Linux GPL changes (which it won't).


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By prenox on 3/12/2008 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
Lets face it the average Walmart shopper isn't exactly tech savvy enough to run Linux either.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/12/2008 1:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
Neither is your average Best Buy or Circuit City shopper...


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Does the average Walmart shopper know what an OS is?
Shopper: Can I get on the internet? yes.. Can I type up documents.. yes.. can I play music? .. yes.. It only costs 200$! put it in my cart!

The average walmart shopper is cheap, thats all i know ;)
Although this being an online item will severely limit its sales.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By mmntech on 3/12/2008 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I guarantee the fact that it didn't include Windows was a major factor. Like the other posters said, they want to be able to run Office et al and this computer can't. Windows has phenomenal brand loyalty. Just look at every Vista debate on here. Or take the Eee PC now including XP. For your average computer owner, there are no viable alternatives to Windows. That's why they use it and curse it. I caution about brining Apple into this though since they aren't targeting the same market as these ultra low-cost systems running Linux or Windows.

Given that, Linux really isn't a viable alternative yet. I wasn't really impressed with gOS because it had a very limited feel. It has trouble striking ease of use with functionality. OS X has shown that a UNIX based OS can work but until Linux can reach that level and supports commercial software, it's just not going to take off.


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By kattanna on 3/12/2008 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 4
you mean to say that grandma or grandpa most likely wouldn't find it a "fun time" to recompile their OS to install the latest kernal patch?

im *SHOCKED* that anyone would NOT find that "fun"

;>)


RE: Linux is not a consumer OS
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2008 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
Look a Jewish smiley face with a big nose.

I kid, I kid.


Wow
By grimdeath on 3/12/2008 3:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
Wow a lot of non-linux fans on dailytech I see. So people on here dont like windows and MS, they dont like Apple, and they do not like linux....what exactly do you people like?! :P

The problem with linux is not distributions, I actually see that as a positive due to branching the market and brining focus in a variety of departments, no the problem is that a lot of big name companies by not porting or building their products and games to linux. If anyone here has actually ran linux they will know that natively running programs (quake wars:ET, filezilla, etc..) actually run just as well if not better. The problem is that people seem to think that just because they put something on linux it has to be open source or free...which just is NOT the case.

Installation of programs and support has came REALLY far in the past two years between my casual tests of distro's like Ubuntu with installation of most apps being "double click and run" anymore. It IS getting much better for non-techie users to handle.

Go ahead and charge me $600 for photoshop cs3 and give me a native linux version, what is adobe losing there? I see them losing more by not doing it due to a higher availability rate. Though of course customer support and perhaps more dev time may be tagged in there bug if you have a knowledgeable linux dev then your fine.

The problem is lack of support by developers, NOT lack of ability by the OS itself.




RE: Wow
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 3:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is lack of support by developers, NOT lack of ability by the OS itself.

No, the problem is that Linux supporters haven't figured out how to overcome the Catch-22 wherein developers don't invest in Linux apps because of the lack of marketshare, and consumers don't buy Linux because of the lack of apps.

In other words, it's not the developers' (software vendors') fault that this situation exists. They are just reacting to the reality of the situation.


RE: Wow
By drzoo2 on 3/12/2008 4:15:55 PM , Rating: 1
Funny how ID managed to release UT2004, Soon to release UT3. Doom3, Quake3, Quake wars, all of these have native Linux installs. Someone managed to do it.....on a large scale.

z


RE: Wow
By darkpaw on 3/12/2008 4:21:34 PM , Rating: 3
Considering id doesn't even make the Unreal games thats kinda funny.


RE: Wow
By drzoo2 on 3/12/2008 8:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hey thanks for pointing that out. So to further my case there are two major software companies that are able to support Linux. Hey...it is funny.
I realize these companies are going to make decisions that further their profit margins vs the right thing. My point is it must be feasible in some cases for developers, like ID and Epic, to release native Lin installs or they wouldn't do it. At some point, most likely when it's too late people are going to wish they had an alternative when MS finally pulls their bag of tricks and kills the open source community. They'll keep Aple around so the appearance of competition is there. At that point the Music industry will be happy, The Motion picture industry will be happy, The consumer, not so happy.

z


RE: Wow
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 4
So what about the other 99%? Are you saying they're all wrong?

My main issue is your implication that software vendors that don't decide to support niche operating systems are somehow bad. In my book, they're just following good business practices. Maybe some companies will reach different decisions, but the vast majority of companies make a basic cost-benefit analysis.

And I also reject your implication that it is somehow the duty of software vendors to invest their own resources in order to help ensure the success of Linux. That makes no sense.


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 6:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
From a business perspective, Linux needs to convince software development companies that developing for their systems is a good and profitable decision, that will benefit their company. Frankly in a basic cost analysis measure the cost to port to Linux versus the average return cost from the tiny Linux community is a non-starter.


RE: Wow
By robinthakur on 3/13/2008 7:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
And that's just including the recoverable costs from those that don't feel that its fine to pirate their software just because its been made for a free OS. I assure you that the numbers are not on Linux's side here...SHaving said that, some apps in the higher echelons such as Maya have been available on a nix variant for years now. Mac's rule the Photoshop market, if only for snob value, so forget that. Whilst you can make it run on PC, try telling that to a designer who's Feng Shui environment would be compromised by the noisy, fugly square box you'd install. Not gonna happen. I can only imagine what they'd say when confronted with a Gnome or KDE interface, but it wouldn't be pretty.


RE: Wow
By Spivonious on 3/12/2008 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have no doubt that Photoshop (as an example) heavily utilizes the Windows API. To port it to Linux Adobe would have to completely rewrite the entire application, which isn't practical.

Just look at Flash. It's so heavily entangled in the 32-bit world that Adobe still hasn't released a 64-bit version of it.

What is Adobe losing by offering a native Linux executable? Lots and lots of time, and as we all know, time equals money.


RE: Wow
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 4:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly right. People these days seem to forget that commercial software development costs money, lots of money. And businesses have only limited resources, and therefore, they need to invest in developing in areas that give the best return. And obviously many companies have realized that supporting non-Windows platforms just isn't worth the investment.

In other words, most companies that sell software don't give a crap about whether a particular OS thrives or survives, unless that somehow helps their bottom line (e.g., Microsoft).


RE: Wow
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have no doubt that Photoshop (as an example) heavily utilizes the Windows API. To port it to Linux Adobe would have to completely rewrite the entire application, which isn't practical.
Porting a 1000 dollar program like photoshop to linux just does not make good business sense, its as simple as that. It has nothing to do with windows apis are the complexity of running on a different environment. Once again the linux GPL comes into play, Adobe would have to release a free version of photoshop, even if it is limited, you would have to think nobody is going to pay the huge photoshop price tag if they can get the essentials for free. And lets not get started about reverse engineering. Besides the GIMP is a great photoshop clone, and would probably be better than any first gen photoshop product that adobe could come out with.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be right on the mark.


RE: Wow
By johnsonx on 3/12/2008 6:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
you mean I can't write a program for Linux and sell it unless I give it away too? That doesn't seem correct. I understand a Linux OS distro has to be available free, but there are commercial Linux programs out there.


RE: Wow
By Spivonious on 3/13/2008 10:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Linux software has to be under the GPL, just core OS stuff.


RE: Wow
By rcc on 3/12/2008 5:52:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
what exactly do you people like?! :


They like to bitch


Selling well online?
By Nekrik on 3/12/2008 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
The caption for the picture reads: "The second-generation gPC2 - available online only, and selling quite well there."

I'm curious what the actual numbers are for the online sales. While it's not an indicator if any units have or have not sold there's not a single review or rating for the second version of the gPC2, I'd expect a few from both happy and pissed off customers if they had actually sold any. As it is I wouldn't drop $199 on any tower machine sporting the hardware specs this thing has regardless of the OS it did or didn't ship with.




RE: Selling well online?
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 4:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few differences with selling online that probably make it more viable:

1. You don't have to dedicate valuable floor space

2. You don't have to train sales staff at each store

3. You don't have to worry so much about returns - how many customers are going to pay shipping to return a $200 PC?

Bottom line, by selling online, you can sell fewer units nationally and still make money on the product line, because of the above factors.


RE: Selling well online?
By Nekrik on 3/12/2008 5:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with the points you made, I was just more curious about what 'selling quite well' means and looking for some numbers to support it.


Heh
By Elementalism on 3/12/2008 4:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
You mean all of the msgboard posters who claim Linux is 1000x better than Windows are wrong? The average consumer doesnt want linux? Looks to me like Windows have nearly a 160x bigger market share than old linux.




RE: Heh
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean all of the msgboard posters who claim Linux is 1000x better than Windows are wrong? The average consumer doesnt want linux? Looks to me like Windows have nearly a 160x bigger market share than old linux.
Windows does not control the market because they dominate the home desktop PC world, Windows dominates because they own the business world. Its a trickle effect, solely target business's and the tricle effect of people being required to know and use windows at work, will ensure the same people buy a windows PC at home.

Mac OSX seems to be a superior OS for the average, I play music watch videos and surf the net user. But apple targets their resources and marketing towards the home user, the main reason why they will NEVER take enough marketshare from Microsoft to be considered a real competitor unless they change their business strategy.

Although Apple does seem to care more about profits than marketshare, as it seems they are more than content hovering at around the 7-10% marketshare as long as they rake in the cash.


RE: Heh
By TomZ on 3/12/2008 7:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows does not control the market because they dominate the home desktop PC world, Windows dominates because they own the business world. Its a trickle effect, solely target business's and the tricle effect of people being required to know and use windows at work, will ensure the same people buy a windows PC at home.

Actually, I think it works both ways. In other words, people like it best when they have the same OS at home and at work. Lessens learning curves, businesses spend less resources training, people can do work stuff at home, etc.


guts
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/12/2008 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
what do these machines have on the inside?




RE: guts
By Chris Peredun on 3/12/2008 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Both the gPC and gPC2 have VIA C7-M 1.5GHz processors, 512MB of RAM, 80GB hard drives, and DVD/CDRW combo drives.

The gPC2 is on a slightly newer motherboard revision and uses SATA instead of IDE; other than that, they're essentially identical.


What does any of this have to do with Linux?
By Kishkumen on 3/12/2008 3:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's irrelevant that the gPC ran linux and failed. The gPC may have done slightly better if it came with Windows XP at the same price point, but not by much. The crappy hardware underneath ensures a swift failure to meet user expectations, not the OS itself. Microsoft's monopoly only hastens the dissatisfaction.




By TomZ on 3/12/2008 4:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
I totally disagree. A PC selling at near that price point would sell like hotcakes if it ran XP. The OS is clearly a limiting factor for most people.

Your assumption is that consumers are well-informed about the "crappy" hardware, which they are not. People paying that amount for a PC know it is a bargain PC.

And I'll bet a lot of people who are buying this thing are actually wiping the OS and loading XP on it, just like you see with the Asus Eee (...and why Asus are coming out with XP versions).


By sapiens74 on 3/12/2008 5:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike MS and Apple which offer a complete solution, with Apple tossing hardware into the mix.

Apple made Unix pretty and intuitive and easy to use, MS made Windows the most compatible and they also make the most needed application Office for both of those platforms.

If Linux had a united front like the other two, with all devleopers backing one Distro, you could see them making some serious progress. Until that happens, and the consumer can buy a complete Linux solution, no one will care.




By robinthakur on 3/13/2008 7:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
You articulate my thoughts perfectly. Even the Apple bashers must admire Apple's achievements with getting Unix into a state where its perceived as easier to use than Windows and prettier. Who would have thought that before OSX?? Out of interest is OSX governed by a GPL license or not?

Linux stands zero chance in America. It feels like an OS built by and for communists :) Seriously...'cloned' apps which attempt to duplicate the functionality of its full-sized, full-priced versions on Windows for free. All called silly names like Gimp and Gnome so you can't even guess what they do. You couldn't make it up. Nobody in the Linux community knows the beginning of good business sense, and if any do, they are derided and howled down as neophytes.

A 7 year old child would be able to give them better leadership and strategic thinking and tell them that they need to unite behind Ubuntu (or whatever's popular this week) and push development into making that non-threatening to the general populace and selling its advantages to software companies more.

For example, a good advantage of the PC gaming scene dying a death, is that people will see games consoles as being used for games and PC's, be it Mac, Windows or linux variant as being used for productivity more, which should suit Linux down to the ground as it generally offers a fairly good browsing experience (unless you need proprietary MS solutions such as SharePoint, so not for the business environment) and for cheapo stuff for the third world like the EEEPc then its perfect if they add better power management. They do need to update Star Office seriously though and try and hide/get rid of the need for the command prompt as much as possible.


Windows is limited and a limitation
By eegake on 3/12/2008 9:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
It comes with a set of underlying assumptions originating from the marketing side that the things it offers are necessary or even desirable.

The premier example is the Office suite. The world will never regain the lost billions of man-hours spent fiddling with senselessly ornate Word documents and templates, not ever. PowerPoint is renowned for leading people to dumb down ideas to a small collections of dot points, see the paper "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" by Edward Tufte for a concise analysis of this.

Probably the most interesting loss of productivity I have seen due to Windows is that operating within the paradigm it provides leads people to create manual processes that require a computer operated mouse actuator made of flesh for work that could be entirely automated. I see this again and again, often with the result that a great deal of effort put into a Windows solution becomes a complete throwaway when it is time to industrialize a process.

Right now I have literally hundreds of computers doing work for me, I never physically touch them and really can't even be sure of their physical location other than that they aren't in the same room with me. If the only tool I had in my kit was a GUI with a mouse, I could very simply not be productive in my work, in fact my work would be impossible.

The condition of "Windopia", a blinding nearsightedness brought about by seeing computing through MS Windows, is a mental prison. When Edsger Dijkstra said "COBOL cripples the mind" he illustrated the limits of his vision at the time, for he never anticipated what a sinkhole of human endeavor the world of GUI and mouse would become. To read the postings here one might believe it is the only one of all possible worlds, and nothing is further from the truth.




WTF
By dare2savefreedom on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: WTF
By Sazar on 3/12/2008 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Selling out != sold well.

If you have a stock of 10 items and expect those items to sit on a shelf and sell out in 5 weeks but they don't and instead take 20 weeks, the cost of those products taking up retail space impacts your bottom line, even if it sells out.

If Wal-mart didn't deem these items to be worth the shelf-space in retail stores, it is probably for a good reason. They sell all kinds of other useless junk that apparently somebody finds interesting there.


RE: WTF
By masher2 (blog) on 3/12/2008 1:49:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "How could ghetto walmart customers know what's good for them? "

I remain perpetually suspicious of those who claim to know "what's good" for someone else.


RE: WTF
By rdeegvainl on 3/12/2008 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
It is in your best interest to send me your resources!!!!


RE: WTF
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/12/2008 1:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
I shop at Wal-Mart. I don't consider myself a "ghetto walmart customer".

In fact, I shop there a lot b/c their prices are consistently lower than Target or K-Mart. I actually picked up "No Country For Old Men" on Blu-ray at Wal-Mart this afternoon for $14.96 after $10 coupon.


RE: WTF
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2008 2:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
I shop at any of the 3 as little as humanly possible. I prefer quality to price. Yes Blu-ray movies are the same regardless of where you go but its still the principle of the thing. I've got a Best Buy next to me for any electronics needs. A mall as well for clothing and other things. And a Publix not too far away for groceries. Plus a computer for things I can buy online even cheaper than from Walmart.


RE: WTF
By thornburg on 3/12/2008 2:25:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I shop at any of the 3 as little as humanly possible. I prefer quality to price.


quote:
I've got a Best Buy next to me for any electronics needs.


Dude, if you ever had any credibility, you just flushed it down the toilet. Do you honestly think that you get higher quality goods by shopping at Best Buy than by shopping at Wal-Mart?

+start rant
Crap is crap, whether you pay $5 or $500 for it. Likewise quality goods are quality goods regardless of the price you pay. Wal-Mart sells lots of crap and a few quality goods, Best Buy sells lots of crap and a few quality goods. Even a place like Tweeter sells lots of crap and a few quality goods. You have to do research on brands and even particular models to find quality goods. And then you need to find out which stores sell them. Sometimes it's Wal-Mart, sometimes it's Best Buy, sometimes it's Amazon.com.
-end rant


RE: WTF
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/12/2008 2:29:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Crap is crap, whether you pay $5 or $500 for it. Likewise quality goods are quality goods regardless of the price you pay. Wal-Mart sells lots of crap and a few quality goods, Best Buy sells lots of crap and a few quality goods. Even a place like Tweeter sells lots of crap and a few quality goods. You have to do research on brands and even particular models to find quality goods. And then you need to find out which stores sell them. Sometimes it's Wal-Mart, sometimes it's Best Buy, sometimes it's Amazon.com.
-end rant


Exactly. I usually buy name brand items, and when I do, I buy it wherever I find it the cheapest. I don't care if it's Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy.

I bought my PlayStation 3 from Target b/c they offered it for $399 plus you got a free $40 gift card. I bought NCFOM from Wal-Mart b/c they had the cheapest regular price and I had a $10 manufacturer coupon to use...

I see no sense in going to only one store "just for principle" if it costs me more money in the end.


RE: WTF
By omnicronx on 3/12/2008 2:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. I usually buy name brand items, and when I do, I buy it wherever I find it the cheapest. I don't care if it's Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy.
Speak for yourself, I shop at Best Buy just for the geeksquad support.. *runs off laughing into the night*..


RE: WTF
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 3
I worked for Best Buy(Geek Squad). I refuse to shop there, Amazon/Newegg for life.


RE: WTF
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2008 3:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Best Buy does not sell the creme of the crop for some things, but generally they sell good stuff. I don't buy PCs or laptops there. I bought my TV there along with my surround sound. Yes they're not top of the line but I wasn't looking for it either. And I trust stuff from them far more than Walmart who has even cheaper versions of things produced so they can sell them at a cheaper cost. A product at Walmart is not always the same thing as one of the same name at Best Buy or anywhere else.

Generally though, the biggest things I buy at Best Buy is video games and movies. Yes I can get them online for a bit cheaper but I'll spend an extra buck or two to get it today. But regardless, I'd much rather give my money to Best Buy than Walmart.

I do my research on any high ticket items I buy and shop around for the best price. And actually Best Buy's Magnolia "stores" (which are inside Best Buys) carry extremely highend stuff. Of course they also charge you out the butt for it. Circuit City, while expensive, does typically carry a bit more high end things than Best Buy as well. Even if I could verify that the one I looked at was available at Walmart, was the same one found elsewhere, and they had the cheapest price, I still wouldn't buy it at Walmart.

I have a problem with buying things like TVs online though. If its broke out of the box, you can't just drive back and get another, you have to pay to ship it back, and then wait for them to ship you another.


RE: WTF
By dare2savefreedom on 3/13/2008 12:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
yeah your i95 walmart aint the same you eastie.

In cali(west side!) the walmart(s) [because we have more than one within 15 miles of each other] are where the ghetto shoppers go.


RE: WTF
By Xodus Maximus on 3/12/2008 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 1
I could be talking out of my behind on this one but I venture to say that it sold out, but a lot may have come back because people that purchased it failed to realize that it was different than a Windows PC.

WalMart, like any other retailer seems to like a one way supply chain, returns kink the system, so if a product has a high return rate, I see that as the main reason it was probably pulled so fast...


RE: WTF
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 3:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
True. If they can't move enough, can't get logistics squared away for shipping to most of the stores, or if it has a high return rate they don't stock it. It's very possible they recieved a lot of complaints that when they got it home it didn't work, didn't do basic things the way they were used to, and returned it in short order.


RE: WTF
By anotherdude on 3/12/2008 4:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Can you buy one of these things and just throw XP on it? You would think. Unless the BIOS forbids it or else drivers are simply unavailable. If so I wonder how many of these things were bought and turned into cheap Windows boxes.


RE: WTF
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 6:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Given the hardware it would be a mediocre XP system at best.


RE: WTF
By anotherdude on 3/12/2008 7:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but I'm just wondering how many of the boxes sold actually ended up running Linux at all. If one came my way I'd slap XP on it right away and give it to somebody, or use it myself is I was short on cash.


RE: WTF
By bfonnes on 3/12/2008 7:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mock your use of good adjectives, but how about craptacular? :D


RE: WTF
By joemoedee on 3/13/2008 6:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given the hardware it would be a mediocre XP system at best.


It actually shouldn't be that bad of a XP system. XP's been out a long time now, and its very low on the hardware requirements. I wouldn't try playing any games on it, but for general office/internet duties I'm certain it would provide acceptable performance.

The biggest things hurting this product for the general consumer:

1. No Windows. Sorry, but when Linux has just passed Windows 98 in usage, it's not ready for primetime, nor will it ever really be ready. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-linu...

2. No monitor. Once you add on a decent monitor for say, $150, you're now at $349. Most times you can find a more powerful, Windows loaded system, Monitor included, Name brand system for around the same price.

This product can do well on-line, mainly because the majority of the buyers would probably end up being more enthusiasts that just need a cheap box.

I'm sorry, this is not a full general purpose machine for the masses.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki