On 2007-12-26 18:22:39 -0500, "Joel Koltner"
said:

> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
> news:597a52ef-b7da-494a-be03-344b123ffe95@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> The other "Hot Item" was the ASUS Eee 4G. It was very similar, a
>> small screen, simple Linux system, and full capabilities, but more
>> like a cross between a PDA and a Laptop, for about $400.
>
> I'd say it's just as much a "real" PC as the OLPC machine is. It's certainly
> as powerful as most laptops were, say, 3-5 years ago.
>
> I think the real competition to the Eee PC is something like Nokia's internet
> tablet, the N800.


I just got an eee pc, awesome little machine!

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:50:47 -0500, Phoon Hencman wrote:

> On 2007-12-26 18:22:39 -0500, "Joel Koltner"
> said:
>
>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
>> news:597a52ef-b7da-494a-
be03-344b123ffe95@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> The other "Hot Item" was the ASUS Eee 4G. It was very similar, a
>>> small screen, simple Linux system, and full capabilities, but more
>>> like a cross between a PDA and a Laptop, for about $400.
>>
>> I'd say it's just as much a "real" PC as the OLPC machine is. It's
>> certainly as powerful as most laptops were, say, 3-5 years ago.
>>
>> I think the real competition to the Eee PC is something like Nokia's
>> internet tablet, the N800.
>
>
> I just got an eee pc, awesome little machine!

I've had mine for a few months now. I still love it!

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:22:39 -0800, Joel Koltner wrote:


> I think the real competition to the Eee PC is something like Nokia's
> internet tablet, the N800.

Ahh, the symmetry of that competition -- either one is a win for the
Linux platform



-Thufir

Phoon Hencman wrote:
> On 2007-12-26 18:22:39 -0500, "Joel Koltner"
> said:
>
>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
>> news:597a52ef-b7da-494a-be03-344b123ffe95@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> The other "Hot Item" was the ASUS Eee 4G. It was very similar, a
>>> small screen, simple Linux system, and full capabilities, but more
>>> like a cross between a PDA and a Laptop, for about $400.
>>
>> I'd say it's just as much a "real" PC as the OLPC machine is. It's
>> certainly
>> as powerful as most laptops were, say, 3-5 years ago.
>>
>> I think the real competition to the Eee PC is something like Nokia's
>> internet
>> tablet, the N800.
>
>
> I just got an eee pc, awesome little machine!
>
EeePc is great - the more I use it the more I like it. Highly
customisable, lots of apps available, solid build, truly portable, and
has a restore partition.

GB£220 delivered is a bit more than '$100' but worth it for true
portability.

There is surely a (large?) market out there for truly portable laptops
for small bucks...

I think PCs have taken a wrong turn somewhere - ever more powerful
hardware running ever slower, bloatware. Apart from gaming do you really
need 4-5GHz of processor(s) + 2GB RAM... for internet and Office?

OK you need it to run Vista but no-one 'wants' to run Vista, they want
internet access, email, Office etc.

My old 900MHz 768MB Thinkpad is really zippy running Linux - imagine
what a modern laptop would run like with a 'slimmer' version of XP...

Ahh, I must be getting old...


Guy

* Bigguy fired off this tart reply:

> I think PCs have taken a wrong turn somewhere - ever more powerful
> hardware running ever slower, bloatware. Apart from gaming do you really
> need 4-5GHz of processor(s) + 2GB RAM... for internet and Office?

Bigger hardware means bigger revenues.

Ever-bloating Microsoft software means bigger revenues.

> OK you need it to run Vista but no-one 'wants' to run Vista, they want
> internet access, email, Office etc.
>
> My old 900MHz 768MB Thinkpad is really zippy running Linux - imagine
> what a modern laptop would run like with a 'slimmer' version of XP...
>
> Ahh, I must be getting old...

And wise!

I used to use a Sun workstation that ran on 32 Mb of RAM.

--
Tux rox!

On Dec 28, 10:05 am, Linonut wrote:
> * Bigguy fired off this tart reply:
>
> > I think PCs have taken a wrong turn somewhere - ever more powerful
> > hardware running ever slower, bloatware. Apart from gaming do you really
> > need 4-5GHz of processor(s) + 2GB RAM... for internet and Office?
>
> Bigger hardware means bigger revenues.
>
> Ever-bloating Microsoft software means bigger revenues.
>
> > OK you need it to run Vista but no-one 'wants' to run Vista, they want
> > internet access, email, Office etc.
>
> > My old 900MHz 768MB Thinkpad is really zippy running Linux - imagine
> > what a modern laptop would run like with a 'slimmer' version of XP...

Slimmer than what, XP? Windows 2000 needed 128 megabytes of RAM.
Windows NT 4.0 needed 64 megabytes of RAM.

Keep in mind that you can also use thumb drives or external USB drives
for archives, but 4GB IN ADDITION to the Flash RAM used for the OS and
core applications is quite a bit when it's what you are working on
"right now".

> > Ahh, I must be getting old...
>
> And wise!
>
> I used to use a Sun workstation that ran on 32 Mb of RAM.

I remember using a SPArC/10 Workstation that had only 8 Mb of RAM, 512
megabyte hard drive, and a 10 MIPS (roughly equal to 16 Mhz 80386).

When you look at these OLPC and EEE laptops, with 256 Mb of RAM, 2 Gig
of FLASH, SD-RAM slots easily capable of supporting 4G, and external
USB "sticks" that can hold 8 Gigabytes in Flash RAM or 160 Gigabytes
in USB drives at SATA speed, it's pretty easy to see that these are
anything but "toy" computers.

Still, even Windows XP would be very cramped in that environment,
while Linux can easily work beautifully. Windows 2000 might fit, but
most of the applications would be tricky.

Linux on the other hand, often runs as a VMWare Client, and often with
as little as 128 Mb of allocated storage on XP machines, and still
runs quite elegantly, even with KDE and Office.

> Tux rox!

We really need to find a way to get the "Linux Brand" more firmly
established. ASUS is including Linux with their motherboards, but
there is no mandate to display the Linux trademarks or logos on the
packaging. There OEMs are forced to get prior written approval from
Microsoft on any promotional materials, including packaging, that uses
the Microsoft trademarks and logos. Microsoft generally approves ads
and packaging that is exclusively Microsoft and makes no mention of
competitors almost immediately. On the other hand, when a
competitor's product is mentioned, or included, it is often not
approved in time for the deadlines required by the publishers and
printers. Most of the time, there is a "Plan A" promotion that is
"Microsoft and competitors", and a "Plan B" promotion which is
"Microsoft Only". The "Plan B" gets approved immediately, but Plan A
seems to have to go through legal, then marketing, then negotiation,
then other delays, and never quite gets approved in time for the
deadline.

Apple has found a very simple way to avoid such things, by simply
eliminating the use of the word Microsoft in all of their promotional
materials. They simply have someone who looks similar to Bill Gates
(glasses, heavy, brown suit), and make refereces to his "PC" without
actually mentioning Microsoft. They seem to have even gotten away
with the term "Vista" since it's a generic term, like Windows.

The bigger problem for Linux is that it STILL isn't showing up on
retailer shelves. We still can't go to Wall-mart or Staples or even
Best Buy and look at a Linux powered computer. Unfortunately, the
"Linux Ready" on retailer shelves look just like the other $600 laptop
or $300 desktop sitting next to it, because they are only shown with
Windows.

What I do find interesting is that the "Linux Ready" machines are
still commanding premiums of as much as 20-30% even though they are
not shown with Linux.

I'd like to see OLPC and other Linux "appliances" showing up on the
retail shelves, but so far, even the appliances that are showing up
are not promoting Linux in any way shape or form. The vendors seem
more than happy to take advantage of Linux and it's extraordinary
capabilities, but they seem to be completely unwilling to even provide
the slightest mention of Linux and it's contributors in their finished
product.

Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org

"Rex Ballard" wrote in message
news:9c78c89b-7ffb-485f-9cac-0fbe1b4e665f@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The vendors seem
> more than happy to take advantage of Linux and it's extraordinary
> capabilities, but they seem to be completely unwilling to even provide
> the slightest mention of Linux and it's contributors in their finished
> product.

I sympathize with you, Rex, but I suspect that most marketing surveys show
that the mention "Linux" to most consumers creates FUD is there's any reaction
at all... so they figure it's better to just not mention it... and of course
Linux advocates will quickly find out which devices use it anyway.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut had the audacity to say that:

> * Bigguy fired off this tart reply:
>
>> I think PCs have taken a wrong turn somewhere - ever more powerful
>> hardware running ever slower, bloatware. Apart from gaming do you really
>> need 4-5GHz of processor(s) + 2GB RAM... for internet and Office?
>
> Bigger hardware means bigger revenues.
>
> Ever-bloating Microsoft software means bigger revenues.
>
>> OK you need it to run Vista but no-one 'wants' to run Vista, they want
>> internet access, email, Office etc.
>>
>> My old 900MHz 768MB Thinkpad is really zippy running Linux - imagine
>> what a modern laptop would run like with a 'slimmer' version of XP...
>>
>> Ahh, I must be getting old...
>
> And wise!
>
> I used to use a Sun workstation that ran on 32 Mb of RAM.
>

My first PC was a DEC, had 4 Mb of ram, and ran Windows just fine. What
does 1000X the ram get you these days? Windows runs just fine. Hmm, the
more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

*R* *H*
--
AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE!
FEAR! FIRE! FOES!
AWAKE! AWAKE!
-- J. R. R. Tolkien

* Rockinghorse Winner fired off this tart reply:

> My first PC was a DEC, had 4 Mb of ram, and ran Windows just fine. What
> does 1000X the ram get you these days? Windows runs just fine. Hmm, the
> more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

The first PC I bought (after the Atari ST) was a 386SX with 2 Mb. Same
experience.

Microsoft later decided that the graphical shell and the OS should be
merged. I wonder how much convincing ($$$? Yelling? Throwing of
chairs?) it took to get David Cutler on board with that one.

--
GNU/Linux rox, Tux!