Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:58 AM -0500:
> Seth, > > I think you mix up two different things: > - if you want to by recent hardware, as a good rule, it is not cheap. > - if you settle for not so recent hardware, it will be cheaper and it > will be supported by linux. > > Personally on a low budget, I don't see the reasoning in buying the > latest hardware, that is a factor of say 2 more powerful at a factor > of 4 higher prices. > > On the other hand: if you are looking for good and recent hardware it > will be expensive, but if you select a linux friendly manufacturer it > will be also supported by linux. OK, let me tell you why I believe I'm not mixed up ... at least on this. I actually said commodity hardware. I meant the stage where hardware and drivers are stable, there are multiple mainstream suppliers and they are priced as commodities. With the short product lifetimes of consumer electronics, that means recent, though not bleeding edge. What exactly is that today? It's completely a matter of opinion. My notion is something like a 2GHz 64-bit AMD or 3GHz Intel processor, 256MB DDR RAM, graphics chipset on motherboard, USB2.0 ports, DVD writer and a 150MB+ (modern) hard drive. Purchasing a USB keyboard or wireless mouse at the local store should neither require a trip to the list nor compiling a kernel. Such systems are plentiful, stable and cheap from mainstream manufacturers, even with the preinstalled commercial O/S. Buying commodity hardware like this from a shop that preinstalls Linux, or is at least responsible for compatibility, will normally cost a lot more. It is extremely hard for small shops to compete with the WalMarts, eMachines and Microsofts of the world. They can only do so by not making much profit, or being subsidized by their customers' good will. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
