Building a $200 Linux PC 300
WesternActor writes "Computers are getting cheaper to buy every year, but there are still sometimes advantages to building them yourself. ExtremeTech has a story about how they sought out the parts for a $200 computer that (of course) runs Linux as a way of breaking the budget barrier. They even test it against a commercially available eMachines nettop to see how it compares in terms of performance. This probably isn't something everyone will want to do, but it's an interesting example of something you can do on the cheap if you put your mind to it."
What about atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
For the price they paid for CPU+mobo they could have got a mobo with an Atom CPU soldered in. That socket doesn't come for free and, after all, when was the last time you had a CPU upgrade? By the time you want more performance you will most likely get a whole new system.
Re:What about atom? (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, I upgraded my CPU about two months ago - from a 2.6 GHz Athlon64 X2 to a 3 GHz Athlon II X2 - and it's been decently peppy. More importantly, it let me take the old CPU and pop it into a cheap Linux box of my own. :)
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Depending on what you do, four times faster may be imperceptible.
I have two systems with dual core Atom ITX mobos, one with the 330 chip and another with the 510 chip. The slower board I use as a file server and music player, it has 2 GB memory and 1 TB hd. It's in a small case bolted to the wall behind my desk and runs 24/7. It has no keyboard mouse, or display, I access it through NFS and ssh.
The 510 system has a 1 TB hd and 4 GB RAM. I recently did an upgrade to my desktop system and the new mobo had neither a parallel printer nor an RS-232 serial port. I still have equipment in my electronics hobby shop that uses those interfaces, like my multimeter and PIC development system, so I put together a small computer to use in the shop.
My experience has been that these two systems have all the CPU power I need for the tasks I created them for. I even tested them briefly with XP. although they only have Linux installed now. I found that it's possible to run DirectX 8 games in them but DirectX 9 is too slow. They can display decent video up to 480 lines but it becomes choppy at higher resolutions. This gives an approximate idea of the possibilities of such systems.
Re:What about atom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it's around 4x faster at everything, including sucking up electric power and converting it to heat.
The atom has a TDP of 8-14 W while the Athlon II is between 25-65 W. If you let both machines run for two years, then the combined purchasing price + the running cost put the Athlon in a very unfavorable spot, especially if you don't need the processing power on a regular basis.
If you have a good reason to get a fast, power hungry CPU, then fine, but otherwise is would be a waste. Which is what I was wondering in the article about: what's the purpose of this kind of setup? Ignoring the running cost, noise output and some other factors. They seem to have been bored.
Re:What about atom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Interesting)
``The atom has a TDP of 8-14 W while the Athlon II is between 25-65 W. If you let both machines run for two years, then the combined purchasing price + the running cost put the Athlon in a very unfavorable spot, especially if you don't need the processing power on a regular basis.''
On the other hand, the TDP is (as far as understand it) an upper bound on what the CPU could draw. If you do need the processing power on a regular basis, then you may get close to the power figures stated - but then the Athlon II allegedly (I didn't verify the claims) also gets you a lot more processing power. If you don't need the full processing power (the more likely scenario), then you will also not use as much power. The Athlon II CPUs in this chart [lostcircuits.com] use about 7 W when idle. I don't know what an Intel Atom uses when idle, but I wonder if it leaves a very large difference. At some point, when you want to save power, the best thing to do is to simply turn off the computer.
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
That socket doesn't come for free and, after all, when was the last time you had a CPU upgrade? By the time you want more performance you will most likely get a whole new system.
Why? The only things they've really cut corners on here are graphics, memory, and CPU. All of these are upgradable without losing the rest of the system, so why would you get a whole new system when you didn't need to?
The motherboard may be cheap, but it's not lacking in power and can support a much better system than the one they've put together here.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about atom? (Score:5, Informative)
The AMD AM3 processors are backwards compatible with AM2/AM2+ sockets and AM2+ processors are backwards compatible with AM2 sockets.
AM2 came out in May, 2006.
Re:What about atom? (Score:5, Informative)
I found this out the hard way.
Fuck you, Gigabyte.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Interesting)
My last rig was an AM2 system and it's a bit simplified to say that you need to only upgrade the processor.
The only time in my life in which I have purposefully upgraded the processes was when I used the planned obsolesce due to budget algorithm. This algorithm works on the basis of monetary limitations which directly limit the capabilities of the equipment available. ie, I could not afford the shiniest of the shiny.
The general philosophy was to build a new system with something borrowed, something stolen and then some things new. Using the planned obsolesce algorithm I would under spec the processor to something very affordable.
This meant I was on a purpose set upgrade cycle of 4-6 months. It was hoped that during this time I could accomplish two things. My wallet would grow over time and through sheer of will I would force market prices to fall. Invariably, within 4 - 6 months prices would dramatically shift and I could upgrade my rig to it's full potential.
Since those dark times my build strategy has changed and I usually just build the rig as I wish. This means that generally upgrading the processor will not yield that much performance. Even worse is that purchasing a new processor that has greater support for faster memory and newer board designs means I would under utilize it's capabilities. In essence, it's a bit wasteful to purchase just a processor because there is more under the hood then simply cycles.
There are other areas to eek out performance or substantially increase beyond the proc. There are bus speeds, memory speeds and even faster IO ports. To the extent that one waits to upgrade the divide usually widens proportionally. Sometimes they even make a fancy new DMA channel and slap on a new name.
So yes, while I could have upgraded my AM2 system to an AM3 there were substantial improvements in the design. Most notably in my case were memory speeds had doubled from my installed module. There were several other improvements, but let us just say things had improved.
Re:What about atom? (Score:5, Funny)
I should also note that I had substantial issues upgrading my AM2 system. I purchased a new quad core Intel proc. I had substantial issues lining up the pins and when the dremel failed to produce favorable results I went to see the local computer shop.
They were completely horrified and helped educate me on some changes in the world. Eventually, they sent me home with a brand new 200 watt power supply and serial mouse.
When that failed to work I decided to go to radio shack (the shack!) and see if they could get me on the right track.
They were completely horrified at both the previous shop and the things I had done. Eventually, they too sent me home with a brand new cell phone and a subscription to subscription to satellite tv service. They said to ask the sat installer for assistance when he comes out next week.
Re:What about atom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, most people would be better off buying a cheap dual-core laptop $479 - 3 gig ram, dual core, 320 gig hd), refusing the MS install (-$55) and getting a refund on Windows, and they also won't have to buy a monitor (-$100), keyboard and mouse (-$25) mouse, ups (-$40), or wireless networking to steal wifi since they're so cheap ($25). So, laptop $479-$245=$234 vs their machine ($192) = $42 (and you don't have to pay shipping on the laptop or assemple it), for twice the hd space and 3x the ram - or you can sell the 2 gigs of ram to someone else and you're ahead of the game.
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
getting a refund on Windows
Easier said than done
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Only because people are lazy. Get out your camcorder, make a video of you refusing the agreement, and installing linux, and tell microsoft you want your money back. What's the big deal?
Or if you want to get more than Microsoft will refund, find someone who wants a legit version, and do a dd if=/dev/whatever_windows_partition of=/their_bare_hard_drive-partition#2, and give them the license sticker.
Even simpler, sell them the original hard drive with the install files on it, and use the money to buy yourself an even bigger drive for your laptop (and this way Microsoft can't even try to claim that it's tied to the hardware - the hardware it was on went with the OS). A 320gig laptop hard drive with a valid new windows license should net you enough to buy a 500gig to 640 gig laptop hard drive.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
I somewhat agree, however the performance difference is massive between an Athalon and an Atom. For a fully featured computer, you really want a proper processor.
I've looked down both paths a lot in the past, and you pay for flexibility. That being said, it's about the same price, so why not go with a decent processor?
Re:What about atom? (Score:2, Informative)
It's ATHLON, damnit! ATHLON! Not "Athalon".
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Which, with an atom, will be a whole lot sooner than with a more powerful chip. If you're building your own system, then it's likely a desktop and that means it has to be able to handle desktop tasks and not just netbook ones (perhaps even act as a MythTV box, etc).
But you're right, I almost never upgrade the CPU. I go for ram first, and I found a good, small SSD is worth much more in perceived speed than incremental CPU upgrades. An atom is 32 bit only IIRC, so there is no upgrading beyond 4GB ram at most (Windows 32 it's 3GB, not sure how Linux handles it on 32 bit systems).
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Actually the Atom, when bundled with the Nvidia ION, is capable of being a high-def Myth box. I've set up a number of the $200 Acer Aspire Revos for this purpose. Was even able to get a Windows refund too (although I haven't actually received the check yet, so I don't know how much of one).
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Informative)
ATOM processors are VERY slow compared to the dual Core they chose, unless you pair the ATOM with an integrated GPU on an ION board you would easily go over budget trying to cram in a GPU.. Then you are also stuck trying to use GPU accelerated applications or you suffer horrid performance for multi-media..
Other than physical size they system they built vastly out performs a ATOM solution.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Informative)
In skimming the article, they wanted to have flexibility to upgrade. You could go from something like an 2.9Ghz Athlon II x2 (which they used), to a 3.2Ghz Phenom II x6 That's a pretty decent upgrade.
I built my new desktop for Christmas (subsidized by friends and family as their presents to me). I went with an Asus motherboard with a AM3 socket, and an Athlon II x4. I actually intended to grab a Phenom II x4, but grabbed the wrong one. Oops. In some quick digging online, before taking a drive back to the store, it seems this CPU is can be overclocked to be rather comparable to the Phenom II x4, except it saved $100. I've been very happy with it, but will buy a good Phenom II eventually, as prices come down.
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that most of the Atom motheboards have pretty limited expansion. Not many people replace their CPUs; but being able to add a bunch more RAM, without throwing out your existing stuff, is a very convenient upgrade.
Re:What about atom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about atom? (Score:2, Redundant)
He set these two constraints:
So immediately we know the author is clueless.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Dual core cpus give a quite noticeable increase in system responsiveness. Even if you are only writing e-mail or browsing the web. Sure mozilla isn't going to run any faster (actually with multi-threading this is changing too), but how windows (or linux in this case) responds to you will be certainly improved.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, no one ever accomplished those simple tasks before multicore processors were available.
</sarcasm>
Really, if they wanted a basic machine, as they indicated, they'd go with the cheapest processor, 128Mb RAM, etc, etc. You can set up most Linux distros to work in very tight constraints, and going with the slowest cheapest processor available new, and the smallest stick of ram available, may have come out cheaper.
Quite a while ago, when 133Mhz Pentiums were the norm, I was looking at an old machine that someone had given to me. It was an old 386 server. I was pondering "what will I do with this piece of shit", and finally put Linux on it and took it out for a test drive. It was pathetically slow, but it did the bare minimum that he specified. I didn't use it for much, since I had a blazing fast 200Mhz machine for my normal use. Who'd ever need anything faster. :) Eventually, it made it's way to the dumpster.
Re:What about atom? (Score:3)
Have you used a 133MHz Pentium recently? I tried. Firefox 3.5 took 30 seconds to come up. Stellarium took 5 minutes(!) and when it was at last running, it was so slow it was unusable. The frame rate was something like 0.25 frames per second. How ever did we play Doom on a 486?
Re:What about atom? (Score:3, Informative)
why's that? dual core is nice even for that, so that you can run a flash app(farmville) and skype at the same time. simply unloading system processes to the second core is a huge gain in the way the system feels.
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
The only reason I'm considering upgrading my Atom HTPC (from where I am typing this post) is so that slashdot doesn't freeze my whole browser while loading a story in a tab. Sure, I've fixed it now by setting it to the old no-javascript page, but it's account tied so now it's both crap on my HTPC as well as my laptop.
For the rest, I can play 1080p with intel onboard graphics, can browse the internet and listen to music, all for under 50 watts, and the system was 300 euro 2 years ago , when the atom 330 was launched. The only problems are youtube in fullscreen mode, or slashdot.
Re:What about atom? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got one of these Atom 330's too. 4GB RAM (can only use 3.5GB though... Meh) Anyway, do you use Windows or Linux. I used it for a while as a primary desktop running Ubuntu 9.04 (I think, it was around September 2009, so it sounds correct). It was unbearably slow... Slower that many dumpster-sourced machines I've used and I'm a proud dumpster diver. My brother currently uses it, but I dumped XP on it. No speed complaints at all. I think the NVidia driver for Linux was really bad for the ION GeForce 9400M that was included.
Compared to a Atom D410 based motherboard (Intel D410PT), I used for building a new desktop for my mother in law. Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (was out by then) runs beautifully on it and the thing is just a single-core machine. Including DVD-RW, 250GB HD, 2GB RAM and a very sweet design case (only thing my MiL cared about) it came in around 250€.
I'll be getting back my Atom 330 system soon, as I found a nice laptop in the dumpster for my brother (P-IV Mobile 1.6GHz) and he'll get that instead. Comes with a Windows XP Pro license too. ;-) So, if you run Linux on you Atom 330, I'll be glad to hear what you did to get it running decently.
Back a few years, I did give me the same challenge....Or at least similar: 500€ [slashdot.org] If I could do it, my I'd build my sister a new PC and gift it to her. I did manage. The machine still works, but she now uses a Core2Duo desktop I found at a liquidation sale (store got bankrupt). I offered 300€ for all their computer hardware and this included that fully working E6600-based machine. Sweet :-)
Re:What about atom? (Score:2)
Not linux I'm afraid.
I'm using it as a samba box/torrent client/htpc, and I didn't want to wad through the "omg only patent-free" dickwadery that is linux (Yeah I know, get them from some repository, but I'd rather just install one codec pack and be done with it).
Windows XP Professional, with 2 GB of ram, but with Intel Extreme Slideshow, instead of the ION board (that came out a couple of months after I purchased mine). Everything else on it flies (XP boots in what, 14 seconds or something)
$200??? (Score:5, Informative)
That's crazy-expensive. We recently bought 6 second-hand little HP desktops for $69 each. They only came with 512MB of RAM, so another $15 each upgraded them to 1GB, and they are perfectly serviceable desktops for our sales and admin team.
The CPU is slower than in the story (single-core Athlon 64 at 1GHz), but performance is just fine.
Re:$200??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you would agree that performance no longer is a problem is most cases... Meaning, those HP desktops most likely will perform just as well (and long) as the new ones of today. Pretty sad if you think about it...
Re:$200??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, my wife's machine is a 5yo Gateway laptop with a 3GHz P4 and 1.5G of memory. For lots of stuff, it runs faster than my 2.2GHz dual-core machine at work. Lots of stuff is still single-threaded, and even though that's changing, there's often a critical path that can't be partitioned. Faster CPUs still == win much of the time.
Re:$200??? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you see as "faster" is probably a combination of perception, dependencies on networked software, and background software overhead (anti-virus, outlook, etc) that tends to bog down business computers.
I say this, because a company I work for bought a set of Dell XPS computers a year ago (small project was required to spend around 6k/computer for the amount to be high enough to justify procurement), each with Core2Quads, 8gb+ of ram, bunch of other toys with massive screens, blah blah...
Anyhow, the XPS's run about like a 3 GHz P4 desktop-replacement-laptop my mother bought back in 2005.
*Both* feel like they have a small fraction of the power of an AMD 64 X2 4400+ (2.2ghz) based desktop that I built back in 2007.
What I'm trying to say is that your claim doesn't make any sense from an architectural standpoint if you're familiar with the P4 architectures, and for good reason, since what you perceive as speed has to do with many other factors than the processor and thread handling behavior.
Re:$200??? (Score:2)
The only real numbers I took are for repaginating a Word document I was working on. My work machine took ~34 seconds, my wife's machine took 30. Not a hard-core profiling job, but both machines were similarly loaded (no heavy background tasks). My work machine has 4G of memory, my wife's has 1.5G, both were using about 800M before I launched Word.
I was surprised my wife's machine seemed faster, as it has a 5400RPM drive and my work machine has a 7200. So I assumed the difference must have been due to CPU speed, since if any significant swapping had happened, the disk speed advantage would have kicked in. (The document I was working on was on a USB drive in both cases.)
Re:$200??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:$200??? (Score:2)
Re:$200??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$200??? (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, watch those 3 pluses buddy, you just made me get a NO CARRIER!
New vs. second-hand (Score:2)
Yeah, I know the article wanted all-new parts. But I prefer second-hand because it's usually much cheaper, usually just as reliable as new (except for power supplies and hard drives) and better for the environment. You're saving boxes that would end up in the landfill or some illegal third-world "recycling" dump.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This has always been a plus for Linux, so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do I find this article surprising? Not at all.
I'd generally agree, but it's nice to see an article like this. The biggest mistake attributable to new users is making uninformed hardware choices. If the hardware is fully supported, and there's an write-up somewhere on the web confirming that, then the rest is easy.
That said, what's missing from the article is the dmesg output. A quick search suggests that the motherboard has onboard Realtek RTL8111B NICs, and those NICs aren't supported by FreeBSD. Whether that's the case, or whether it matters, I don't know, but it does underscore the need to know what it is you're buying before you buy it.
Re:This has always been a plus for Linux, so? (Score:2)
To be fair, XP would run just as well on this hardware. I wouldn't run it, but it's certainly a viable option. Don't even need 64 bits with just 1 gig of RAM. And who doesn't have an old XP license lying around?
Supported Hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
With the right hardware Linux is perfect for old hardware. You can customize and tune it quite a bit better than most other OSes. However, the caveat is that the hardware must be decently supported. For example, I have an old laptop with an ATI Mobility 7500 on which I installed Centos 5.5. Normally I'd just grab the FGLRX installer from ATI and remake a module, but in this case, the modules don't work properly. As a result, I'm using a non-accelerated video driver which is painfully slow even for non-intensive graphics such as scrolling a terminal window. I'm not conceding defeat yet. It might be a matter of putting the correct hardware ID into the source and re-compiling or it might be something else entirely. Luckily I know how to do that, but sometimes it's a chore. Not difficult to do, certainly, but a PITA.
On the other hand I have some old single-core AMD Athlons running some virtual machines via Xen and KVM. Even after years of service, they still do a very good job. On a nightly basis they run some software rebuilds in some VMs and in others run DNS, LDAP, fileservers and mail. I have imported the VMs into a newer quad-core system, but until they die, they use less power than the modern machine.
Re:Supported Hardware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Supported Hardware (Score:2)
When we moved, I put my old Sun workstation (single core 2.4GHz Opteron) in storage. It took longer to find a house than I expected, so I wound up building a quad-core box. When we finally got moved in, I was quite surprised to notice that my old box actually felt faster than my new one. I put it down to OpenSolaris being tuned for the Sun hardware, plus having a proper graphics card (nVidia Quadro vs the on-board Radeon 4200 on my quad-core box). So now I'm working on setting up my new box to use as a compile/compute server and doing all my editing/surfing/etc on my old one.
Cheap Building can be quite demanding (Score:2, Interesting)
Last winter I put together a 100 euro (~130 dollar) gaming(!) rig.
Took a oc-friendly last-generation graphics card, (~30e), low-end Intel core2 CPU (~25e), random used LGA775 Board (~25e) and 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM (~20e). All 3 off ebay.
I got a IDE-Harddrive, CD-drive and PSU with IDE-style connectors laying around (who uses IDE these days anyway?) and repurposed an old case.
With the graphics card and CPU oc'ed (CPU stable at around twice the stock frequency with boxed cooler) it's a quite veritable rig. Though not every setting can be maxed out, it performs well with any new game.
How much disk space do they need...? (Score:2)
[160GB] would give us more than enough room for the OS, and still leave us lots of space for files--no, we wouldn't be able to store our entire photo or MP3 collections, but we wouldn't be hurting for space either.
How many photos/MP3s do they have? I mean, jesus. I maintain a server here for a 3-person software development company where we also have all the personal data of all 3 employees, and we haven't come close to filling our 400GB RAID array. We have
OS install = about 4GB.
MP3 collections for three people = about 60GB, representing nearly 11,000 tracks.
10 years' worth of digital photos for two people (the other doesn't have a camera) = about 10GB.
When they say "photo collection", they're actually talking about porn collections, aren't they?
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:3, Interesting)
"10 years' worth of digital photos for two people (the other doesn't have a camera) = about 10GB."
Depends on what sort of photos you take. Da spouse has over 100GB of painted bunting photos alone (RAW images mostly).
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:2)
Buntings as in birds or buntings as in flag materials?
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Bunting [wikipedia.org] I assume.
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:2)
Oh, so your wife is interested in photography, eh? Snap, snap, grin, grin, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more!
Re:How much disk space do they need...? (Score:2)
I have an mp3 collection approaching over 350 gigs. That's over 40,000 MP3s, OGGs, and FLACs. 20,000 raw photographs on a drive: 150 gigs (and that's just this past year). Heck the 140gb partition I have for my system barely holds windows, CS4 and a few (admittedly large) games. Its only got 40 gigs free right now. Heck I have about 100gigs of PSX ISOs alone, whereas all the 8-bit and 16-bit roms ever released fits somewhere inside the space of like 10 gigs. I never got into collecting PS2 and XBOX ISOs thank god!
not much of a challenge, how about $150 computer? (Score:2)
assuming all new components, with motherboards available for under $40, should be able to build $150 PC (monitor not included though)
Re:not much of a challenge, how about $150 compute (Score:3, Interesting)
Motherboard with video and sound integrated - 40$ , CPU - 37$ , case + psu - 30$, memory 20$
We're at 127$ right now, well maybe at 135$ if we include mouse+keyboard
The hard drive is what would push us over the edge, so how about we just replace it with a 8GB memory stick that's 13-15$ ? 2 GB for the OS should be enough (you would install a Linux in much less space if you want to) and you still have 6 GB left for documents and files.
If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Windows 7 Home Premium retains for $199.99 it obviously has to run Linux otherwise it would be a $400 PC.
I remember reading an article about 15 years ago that said the operating system used to account for 2% of the cost of a PC but by then it was 10% of the cost. It seems that thanks to falling hardware prices and rising prices from Microsoft we've now hit the point where the operating system can be 50% of the cost of the PC.
For purely economical reasons children should use Linux exclusively in schools. As things stand the education system is just generating customers for Microsoft which allows Microsoft to charge whatever they want for the products. I say this as somebody who uses Windows exclusively and who's pissed off at the prices Microsoft charge for their retail software. If I'd grown up using Linux I'd have saved myself a lot of money.
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
Still makes their $200 pc a $300 pc and you still then need to get an AV package :P
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2, Informative)
That's the OEM version which has too many restrictions to be viable for people who assembe their own PCs. If you regularly upgrade your system components you can find that the OEM version will deactivate and Microsoft will refuse to reactivate it. The retail version is the only real option for self-builders and that's retails for $200, or $180 at NewEgg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116716&cm_re=windows_home_premium-_-32-116-716-_-Product
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point of not pirating if you're going to violate the license anyway?
Simple (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
I thought MS had ended that deal. I notice that they no longer offer the option of Home Premium, though... the previous deal had either Home Premium or Professional as options for students.
Mod parent down (Score:2)
If you're putting together a system anyway, you can use MS's OEM pricing, which is about half of the $200 parent quotes.
I can get it cheaper yet because the university I work for has a licensing agreement that, among other things, lets me download a copy of Win7 Pro for $66, or Ultimate for $90.
Re:Mod parent down (Score:2)
Of course it still costs more than free, but it's not quite so bad as claimed.
Re:But it's not cheaper is it? (Score:2)
I'm not paying the extra, so I really don't care.
Or you can go refurb (Score:2)
I ended up getting a refurb HP for my wife for $250. I came with an Athlon II X4 620, 3 GB ram, and a 500 GB HD, and Windows 7 Home Premium. I think it would be pretty hard to build it yourself for that price.
BTW, she didn't like Windows 7, so it is running 64bit Kubuntu 10.4. I still left 7 on the machine though.
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
Since Windows 7 Home Premium retains for $199.99 it obviously has to run Linux otherwise it would be a $400 PC.
Of course, nobody pays $199. That's some bullshit marketing number that everyone gets huge rebates on, it's 50% off at Newegg and probably 70-80% off if you're Dell or HP or Lenovo. Then they bundle it up with various trialware that the trialware makers pay for to make the net contribution more like $0-50 somewhere. I recently bought be a netbook with the XP netbook edition, which I can swear Microsoft sells for almost nothing to sell Windows, not Linux. Of course I wiped it and installed Linux anyway, but that way they don't need to support it, they don't need to stock another SKU and all in all I don't think I could have gotten it much cheaper anyway. But Microsoft got to count it as another Windows netbook sale...
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
Well, the two versions of the retail boxed copy are strange to begin with.
The only apparent difference between the normal retail and Systems Builder editions is that the latter says you can't use it to do an upgrade install... but the thing is, why wouldn't you buy the Upgrade version if you wanted to do an upgrade install?
Price points are very different today (Score:3, Interesting)
I just picked up an Acer One netbook from Target for $199 this week. Windows 7 basic (lose some features I could care less about). 10 inch screen LED lit, 1024x600, 1.66 Atom processor, 1g ram, 160g hard drive, and wi-fi.
Why would I want to build anything with prices like that? Best of all, its very portable, has lasted almost eight hours on a charge, and the keyboard is good too.
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
It's Slashdot and he said something anti-Microsoft, of course.
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC (Score:2)
If you aren't buying a OEM copy, how much is Win7 home premium?
So i'm not sure if i qualify as a OEM when building my on computer not for sale. So to be 100% legal, Newegg has http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116716 [newegg.com] Win7 home premium full, 179.99 which is $20 off the normal price. I'm not sure about the requirements to be in full compliance with the OEM license, but i do know that if i install gentoo/ubuntu/fedora/suse i'll be in compliance with the license.
excluding taxes and shipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
excluding taxes and shipping is pretty ridiculous. they could easily add 1/4 to the budget, and if saving money (not just "ooh, look what i can do") is really a goal, they would have included it.
Re:excluding taxes and shipping? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:excluding taxes and shipping? (Score:2)
Two things:
1. Here in California, it's hard to bypass the sales tax because most of the major retailers have a local presence. The places that don't aren't necessarily cheaper, and if they are, they tend not to be places I'd trust with my credit card.
2. Most states with sales tax also have use tax that covers out of state purchases. You're supposed to report them when you file your state taxes. As an individual making small purchases, you're unlikely to get caught for it, but it's technically illegal.
That's what my computers always cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, 200€ actually, but anyway. This is pretty much how I've built the computers for myself and my family for quite some time now:
- 50€ for Case + Power Supply
- 50€ for Motherboard that has Audio, NIC and GPU integrated
- 50€ for CPU
- 50€ for RAM
Some of the pieces could be a little bit less or more than 50€, but in general that's how it goes. And we've always been perfectly happy with the performance of the machines.
Re:That's what my computers always cost (Score:2)
Re:That's what my computers always cost (Score:2)
And as a major benefit, it appears you run your OS (I'm guessing Damn Small, or Puppy Linux?) on a RAMDisk, making it extra speedy. Of course the inability to save local docs is also sure-fire virus protection. If it wasn't for those pesky boot times...
Used (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Used (Score:2)
I'd pay an extra $110 to build a server system that would be many times faster and use far less electricity. The latter alone would make the return on investment worthwhile.
Why not just buy a used $200 PC? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see the point of this entire article. Why not just buy a used $200 PC and install Linux on it? Or just keep the Windows and install Linux as a dual-boot (If possible)? There are millions of used $200 PCs available. Nearly all will last another five years at least with normal use.
Where's the monitor/etc.? (Score:4, Interesting)
This system is not useful as a desktop if it doesn't include a monitor, keyboard and mouse. The cheapest monitor I see on Newegg is a $99 Hanns-G HW-173ABB 17" LCD monitor, so that would push the price up to $300. The cheapest keyboard and mouse set is about $10. Speakers are about $5. New total is $315 excluding shipping. There's also no mention of whether the integrated sound works in Linux, and whether the integrated video works well (or if Ubuntu resorts to safe graphics mode). I would not be complaining if they had mentioned any of these things in the article.
Re:Where's the monitor/etc.? (Score:2)
This system is not useful as a desktop if it doesn't include a monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Do you typically replace old systems (so that you can reuse their peripherals), or do you just keep adding to your basement desktop cluster over the decades? I wouldn't normally ask, but this is Slashdot.
Re:Where's the monitor/etc.? (Score:2)
Do you typically replace old systems (so that you can reuse their peripherals), or do you just keep adding to your basement desktop cluster over the decades? I wouldn't normally ask, but this is Slashdot.
Neither... I used to stockpile old cables, monitors, etc. but eventually gave them all away on Craigslist. My complaints above were mainly to raise awareness of folks in my situation (who no longer keep spare parts lying around), or those who are starting from scratch.
Re:Where's the monitor/etc.? (Score:2)
If you get to keep bits of the old computer, why not keep at least the hard drive and the case? Then we're down to a $150 computer.
on the curb / dumpster Yes you can find CRT there (Score:2)
on the curb / dumpster Yes you can find CRT there or just use a old one you have laying around.
Re:on the curb / dumpster Yes you can find CRT the (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to dumpster dive for a CRT, why not just dumpster dive for the whole computer? :^)
Re:Where's the monitor/etc.? (Score:2)
That was kind of my thought as well. It didn't seem like they spent any time looking at the actual linux compatibility of the hardware they were sourcing.
cheap hardware == problems down the road (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh (Score:2)
I built a frankencomputer with the same budget limit, but I used lots of scavenged / recycled / outdated components where it didn't matter much. So the keyboard is an old discarded iMac jobby, the mouse is a no-brand PS/2, the monitor is a Viewsonic 21" CRT that someone left at the curb on recycling day, and the case was an extremely ancient IBM Aptiva. As long as it's ATX, it will fit (in this case, from 1998, and it made no difference). I also limited my new purchases to the absolute essentials, and picked everything else up from the discount / return rack. Result? I spent the same as they did, but have an optical drive, 2 gigs of ram, a respectable video card, and an Athlon II X4. Shweet.
$300 Quad core (Score:3, Interesting)
2.5Ghz quad, 800GB(64MB cache), 2GB DDR3-1333, HDMI out, crappy case.
$75.99 AMD Phenom 9850 2.5GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Black Edition Processor HD985ZXAJ4BGH
$59.99 Western Digital Caviar Green WD8000AARS 800GB 5400 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
$69.99 MSI 760GM-E51 AM3 AMD 760G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
$47.99 Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model CT2KIT12864BA1339
$39.99 Foxconn TLM776-CN300C-01 Black/ Silver Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 300W Power Supply
------
$283.95
shipping it works out to about $300, more if you have to pay tax.
DIY to safe money? No (Score:4, Interesting)
Most pre-assembled boxes fail on a quite a couple of choices.
Case:
Unless you are getting some overpriced gamer boxes the case is crap! Hassle to upgrade, cheap materials, lots of edges you can cut yourself etc...
I will be keeping my nice Chieftec tower for the next couple of iterations. Exchanging drives is a lot faster, everything is easy to to get too, nice cool and quiet (with the extra ventilation).
Power Unit:
One of the mayor sources of annoyance. Choosing an efficient and quiet one sure is relaxing.
Mainboard:
Mainboards happen to be the number one source of failure in PCs. Even rather expensive boxes usually have cheap boards since they cant advertise them (more ghz? No. More cores? No. More memory? No. More reliable capacitors? Ever see something like that in a description?)
The mobo is the component i never safe money on. Its supposed to handle the next cpu as well and i rather keep a good mobo than getting the next asrock or similiar.
Do i safe money compared to a similarly specced box from a retailer? No.
But i know its more reliable and easy to upgrade, so i do safe money in the long run due to upgrading and have less hassle replacing sub-par components.
Re:Are we still on this?! (Score:2)
Ummm.... It depends what you are doing. Yes, if you want a basic browser with flash, go down to walmart and buy a computer. If you are building a group of opencv (computer vision) frame processing servers, then linux is the only way to go.
Overall, though, I agree with you that the thought of pushing linux desktop PCs is a little puzzling. It is not really what they are best at, and the only reason I ever use one for browsing is because I vertigo anytime I look at a Vista / Windows 7 desktop.
Re:Is this news? (Score:2)
Yes, but...then they would have had to change the title of the article to Buying a $300 Linux PC.
It's one thing to disagree with someone's answer, it's another thing to say they asked the wrong question.
Re:Is this news? (Score:2)
Actually if you had paid attention in the article you would have learned that the e-machine was vastly outperformed by the cheap budget box.
Is the form factor worth the extra $100? I guess that's for the reader to decide. This is news in a way because previously it was nearly impossible to build a decent box with case and power supply for $200. Barebones systems used to bottom out at $300 without a drive and memory. Prices have really drastically fallen on low end goods. People should put their P3s away and start building some decent, usable systems for $100 or so plus some spare parts.