Re: XO laptops - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: XO laptops - Linux ; "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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Re: XO laptops

  1. Re: XO laptops

    "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.



  2. Re: XO laptops

    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!


  3. Re: XO laptops

    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!


  4. Re: XO laptops

    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

  5. Re: XO laptops

    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

  6. Re: XO laptops

    * 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!

  7. Re: XO laptops

    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

  8. Re: XO laptops

    "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.




  9. Re: XO laptops

    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

  10. Re: XO laptops

    * 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!

+ Reply to Thread