I was just curious about Lindows OS. Is there any truth to the rumor that Wal-Mart will be marketing computer packages with Lindows? Also, has anyone tried it yet? Just wanted to get some feedback since it looks like a fairly decent alternative to MicroSoft (we want to control everything) XP.
Lindows OS - anyone try it yet?
- Thread starter 2336
- Start date
Been reading review of Lindows in SJMercury 2 days ago; not very favorable. The reviewer (Mike Langberg) gave it a test ride on Walmart (Microtel) PC, and what I understand from the fairly long article is that you would better be of with either full Linux distro with Wine (or VMWare if you wanna pay), or with WinXP ..... since Lindows isn't free, you won't save anything considering the general "hassle".
I checked the Lindows site as you probably did as well, and they want $100 (for access to LindowsOS and program online bank - just a collection of selected Linux apps); there is no way I'd do it, since have running Linux (SuSE is my favorite for years) just fine..... and why would one want to download it for $ from Lindows.com if it's naturally available at corresponding developer's sites for free, and in the latest versions? With Linux distributions being as friendly as never before these days, why Lindows at all ? (I do like Linux, but don't have absolutely anything against Windows neither). I personally dual-boot Windows/Linux on 2 desktops and a laptop without any problems.....
Just my 2 cents.
I checked the Lindows site as you probably did as well, and they want $100 (for access to LindowsOS and program online bank - just a collection of selected Linux apps); there is no way I'd do it, since have running Linux (SuSE is my favorite for years) just fine..... and why would one want to download it for $ from Lindows.com if it's naturally available at corresponding developer's sites for free, and in the latest versions? With Linux distributions being as friendly as never before these days, why Lindows at all ? (I do like Linux, but don't have absolutely anything against Windows neither). I personally dual-boot Windows/Linux on 2 desktops and a laptop without any problems.....
Just my 2 cents.
Lindows leaves a little bit to be desired. First, when you install it, you must use an entire hard drive or install inside Windows. You can't install it to an empty partition and dual boot.
If you want to use their 'click and run' software, you must be connected to the net. On a computer not connected to the internet, you're screwed as there is no way to download the files. If you have a modem, some of the software might take days to download and install.
It doesn't appear to work with add-in cards like the Promise Ultra 100.
It does run some software that was coded for Windows though. Most Office 2000 programs run just fine.
Bozo
If you want to use their 'click and run' software, you must be connected to the net. On a computer not connected to the internet, you're screwed as there is no way to download the files. If you have a modem, some of the software might take days to download and install.
It doesn't appear to work with add-in cards like the Promise Ultra 100.
It does run some software that was coded for Windows though. Most Office 2000 programs run just fine.
Bozo
Thanks for the input folks. I was just curious if someone was finally going to give Mr. Gates and his cronies some competition.
Most viable competition costs too much sadly
All hail Linux! (Unless Apple finally gets its head out of its butt and drops prices to reasonable amounts -- then we can hail OS X)
All hail Linux! (Unless Apple finally gets its head out of its butt and drops prices to reasonable amounts -- then we can hail OS X
)Originally posted by: Darien
Most viable competition costs too much sadly
All hail Linux! (Unless Apple finally gets its head out of its butt and drops prices to reasonable amounts -- then we can hail OS X
There was a report linked on /. that Apples cost less than PCs.
Hey guys, not to come across as a wise-a$$, but where do you see that Macs cost less than PCs? Please, show me?!
They don't, unless they're trying to figure in admin costs or something (which doesn't factor in for me). Just compared notebooks recently. The iBook that I want to get runs about $1700. A basically equivalent laptop at Dell (actually the processor is twice as fast Mhz wise but Apple procs are supposed to be more efficient so I considered them equal) costs about $1100. For that much extra money I could go with the Dell AND seriously upgrade my desktop machine for the price I'd pay for the iBook (though I do want one so very bad . I might just wait till I graduate from college at the end of the year and then get one after I get an actual job).
. I might just wait till I graduate from college at the end of the year and then get one after I get an actual job).
I got the Lindows CD sent to me by a friend whom tried it and wasn't impressed.................I installed it last week and have to say I feel the same way............stay with or use Linux for now anyway, Lindows is nowhere near ready for prime time...............
Originally posted by: MGMorden
They don't, unless they're trying to figure in admin costs or something (which doesn't factor in for me). Just compared notebooks recently. The iBook that I want to get runs about $1700. A basically equivalent laptop at Dell (actually the processor is twice as fast Mhz wise but Apple procs are supposed to be more efficient so I considered them equal) costs about $1100. For that much extra money I could go with the Dell AND seriously upgrade my desktop machine for the price I'd pay for the iBook (though I do want one so very bad
My iBook was $1500. An x86 laptop that I would have gotten would have cost me over $2k.
aircooled
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 15,965
- 1
- 0
Actually, that is incorrect. It had nothing to do with anti-trust lawsuits, if anything it hurt's their case. Microsoft bought $150 million in Apple stock with the agreement that all new apple machines would ship with Internet Explorer (here's a link). This was during the hight of the browser wars when IE was falling behing Netscape so any alliance that included IE was a good one for MS (plus apple was hurting bad at the time and MS got some good PR from it).
I dont think Microsoft still owns that stock. And my (admittedly ailing) memory says that Netscape was not ahead at the time. But, I could definitely be wrong.
aircooled
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 15,965
- 1
- 0
As far as I know, MS still owns the Apple shares. (if I am wrong please correct me). .....
but as far as browsers go, in 1997, Netscape 3 & 4 was the dominant browser of the time... IE 4 was just released in April of that year, but IE did not dominate the browser market until IE5 was released (and Netscape had been brushed under the rug of AOL)
Personally, I no longer use Netscape on the MS platform? Not because I dislike Netscape, but more of the rational of ?IE won this battle?. I have no grudge against any browser.. I use what works the best, and on windows, IE seems to work the best.
On my redhat machine I use mozilla 1.0 and have no complaints so far.
but as far as browsers go, in 1997, Netscape 3 & 4 was the dominant browser of the time... IE 4 was just released in April of that year, but IE did not dominate the browser market until IE5 was released (and Netscape had been brushed under the rug of AOL)
Personally, I no longer use Netscape on the MS platform? Not because I dislike Netscape, but more of the rational of ?IE won this battle?. I have no grudge against any browser.. I use what works the best, and on windows, IE seems to work the best.
On my redhat machine I use mozilla 1.0 and have no complaints so far.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: MGMorden
They don't, unless they're trying to figure in admin costs or something (which doesn't factor in for me). Just compared notebooks recently. The iBook that I want to get runs about $1700. A basically equivalent laptop at Dell (actually the processor is twice as fast Mhz wise but Apple procs are supposed to be more efficient so I considered them equal) costs about $1100. For that much extra money I could go with the Dell AND seriously upgrade my desktop machine for the price I'd pay for the iBook (though I do want one so very bad
My iBook was $1500. An x86 laptop that I would have gotten would have cost me over $2k.
At $1500 (and given that you've had yours for a while) that iBook almost certainly has a 12.1" screen. At over $2k I'm almost willing to bet that the x86 had a 14" or 15" screen. I've looked into it quite a bit recently, and feature for feature, the x86 setups turn out cheaper. You can of course find an x86 laptop that costs more than an iBook but it will usually wipe the floor with it performance and feature-wise, in which case you have to move up to a PowerBook to compete and the Apple again looses the price war. Apple will continue to sell fine at their current price point . . . to people who specifically want an Apple. However, if they want to compete in the "real" market, which is people who just want "a computer" (housewives, entering college students, and many others who don't really care about what type of computer they have just that it sends email, talks on AIM, and browses the web) or businesses who are looking to cut costs but getting the cheapest systems they can, then Apple is going to have to cut their hardware prices. Until they do then Apple is going to remain more or less a niche player catering only to graphics designers and (now with OS X) some Unix-philes.
MGMorden,
You're right that on paper, Apple hardware costs more. However, the rest of your analysis is somewhat flawed.
First off, Apple's bread-and-butter customers are home users who want a PC that simply works; a few hundred dollars won't sway the equation for these consumers. The reason Apple is a niche vendor has less to do with MS dominance (MacOS was clearly better than Winblows for a decade) but rather because x86 hardware became commoditized and Apple was stuck defending a small slice of the PC market; furthermore throughout much of the (early to mid) 1990s they arguably were poorly managed. As of right now, the Windows brand is so pervasive and ubiquitous, Apple even has to compete in its traditionally strongest segments: schools and homes.
As far as businesses go, Macs have never been strong in corporate circles, where the applications and compatibility (and also value) are the most important criteria.
In short, it's unfair to "blame" Apple because Winblows (often an inferior product) enjoys a natural monopoly that is strengthened through illegal actions. The only part you can blame Apple for is that they did not port MacOS to x86 boxes in the late 1980s; at that time they could perhaps have won the GUI war.
Finally, if Macs TCO is lower it's probably because in general their hardware requires less maintenance and Macs time in service is longer (I find it somewhat peculiar that quite a few original PPCs are still in use). This is a somewhat ironic conclusion since x86 boxes are higher performing to begin with, but the Macs are used for a longer time period. Either typical Mac users need less performance (which is possible) or their software degrades less than Windows (fairly likely).
You're right that on paper, Apple hardware costs more. However, the rest of your analysis is somewhat flawed.
First off, Apple's bread-and-butter customers are home users who want a PC that simply works; a few hundred dollars won't sway the equation for these consumers. The reason Apple is a niche vendor has less to do with MS dominance (MacOS was clearly better than Winblows for a decade) but rather because x86 hardware became commoditized and Apple was stuck defending a small slice of the PC market; furthermore throughout much of the (early to mid) 1990s they arguably were poorly managed. As of right now, the Windows brand is so pervasive and ubiquitous, Apple even has to compete in its traditionally strongest segments: schools and homes.
As far as businesses go, Macs have never been strong in corporate circles, where the applications and compatibility (and also value) are the most important criteria.
In short, it's unfair to "blame" Apple because Winblows (often an inferior product) enjoys a natural monopoly that is strengthened through illegal actions. The only part you can blame Apple for is that they did not port MacOS to x86 boxes in the late 1980s; at that time they could perhaps have won the GUI war.
Finally, if Macs TCO is lower it's probably because in general their hardware requires less maintenance and Macs time in service is longer (I find it somewhat peculiar that quite a few original PPCs are still in use). This is a somewhat ironic conclusion since x86 boxes are higher performing to begin with, but the Macs are used for a longer time period. Either typical Mac users need less performance (which is possible) or their software degrades less than Windows (fairly likely).
Originally posted by: MGMorden
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: MGMorden
They don't, unless they're trying to figure in admin costs or something (which doesn't factor in for me). Just compared notebooks recently. The iBook that I want to get runs about $1700. A basically equivalent laptop at Dell (actually the processor is twice as fast Mhz wise but Apple procs are supposed to be more efficient so I considered them equal) costs about $1100. For that much extra money I could go with the Dell AND seriously upgrade my desktop machine for the price I'd pay for the iBook (though I do want one so very bad
My iBook was $1500. An x86 laptop that I would have gotten would have cost me over $2k.
At $1500 (and given that you've had yours for a while) that iBook almost certainly has a 12.1" screen. At over $2k I'm almost willing to bet that the x86 had a 14" or 15" screen. I've looked into it quite a bit recently, and feature for feature, the x86 setups turn out cheaper. You can of course find an x86 laptop that costs more than an iBook but it will usually wipe the floor with it performance and feature-wise, in which case you have to move up to a PowerBook to compete and the Apple again looses the price war. Apple will continue to sell fine at their current price point . . . to people who specifically want an Apple. However, if they want to compete in the "real" market, which is people who just want "a computer" (housewives, entering college students, and many others who don't really care about what type of computer they have just that it sends email, talks on AIM, and browses the web) or businesses who are looking to cut costs but getting the cheapest systems they can, then Apple is going to have to cut their hardware prices. Until they do then Apple is going to remain more or less a niche player catering only to graphics designers and (now with OS X) some Unix-philes.
I bought my iBook last summer, so Im going on memory and my data (that I may not be remembering correctly) is old. Anyhow, for a 12.1" screen, <=4.9lbs laptop that is guarenteed to run the OS of my choice without "normal" problems, Apple was the way to go. I wanted portability, not power. In that range, Apple was the best choice. Mac OS X was a bonus. Its small, its light, its fairly powerful (not the best, but its not supposed to be), it works, its *simple*, it was cheap. These are all things I could not have gotten out of an x86 laptop customized to my specifications. So yes, for people that are cheap and know what they want (and its not a Mac), Macs are expensive. For people that are new to computers, not sure what they want, but know they dont want to do too much (email, web, etc) and have a decent job, Macs are great.
EDIT: Also software. Id have to pay for a bunch of Windows based software instead of using the stuff that comes with OS X.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter