In the past, that opinion was fairly valid. Now, the celerons are actually quite speedy little chips, espescially for an Ubuntu box that is going to run web/openoffice/music all day. As for recommending a Via over the current (Dual core) celerons, they are quite a long way behind in performance terms, and not really any cheaper.
I think that the option should be offered to have either LTS or the most current release as an option. For a consumer use, the new software available in a non LTS release does offer benefits over the staid reliability of the LTS. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Liam Proven <lpro...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/25 Eddie Bernard <edd...@gmail.com>: >> I'm looking to offer a base unit, 2GHz dual core Celeron (E1400) with >> 2GB DDR2 PC2-6400 RAM, and a 150GB SATA hdd. Graphics, sound and >> ethernet are onboard. > > My only comment - apart from to agree with those who commend that you > use the LTS version - would be this: I would never buy a Celeron and I > tell everyone, friends and clients, to avoid them. They are nasty, > crippled devices and anything with a "Celery" in it is probably > rubbish, in my not-at-all-humble opinion. > > I'd rather have a cheap low-end but full-spec AMD or Via chip than a > Celeron. Yes, I know it's possible to replace a Celeron with a > full-spec chip, but almost nobody ever does & it's almost never an > economical upgrade. > > -- > Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven > Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com > Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 > AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven > MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508 > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
