Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
askjfk.com wrote in message
<2f83735a.0107300907.3f91d@posting.google.com>...
>Why buy a $300 NEW computer when for that amount of money you could >get a very good USED computer? If you added an office suite, a VGA >monitor connector and a printer to the Sega Dreamcast (which already >has a browser, modem and keyboard available), there's a cheap combo >with great games!
>A decade from now $300 may be the standard price for a computer with >relatively new technology, but the price today is more like $800-1000.
>Realistically, you would have to be able to produce a $300 machine for >about $50-70 to count in all the other costs, like shipping and >returns, so someone would have to think outside the box, so to speak, >to get the job done.
>I do NOT think a monitor should be included with it. It adds weight >and cost. You go to a thrift store and there are lots of monitors >there. People also have TVs. The computer should have connections for >at least types of monitors: SVGA, RCA and AV for TV/VCR. People can >get whatever type of monitor they want.
>I also think the day of the all-in-one desktop unit (the Apple IIc, >Atari 800, Commodore 64 etc.) should be revived if one wants to be >economical. Have a serial printer port, joystick/mouse port, the >aforementioned three monitor/TV ports, SCSI port. Built in would be a >33k modem and 3.5 floppy drive for data storage. I wouldn't include >CD-Rom. All the necessary stuff should be pre-installed to make life >easy.
Why not build it with a buildt in monitor like these TV s with buildt in VCRs kinda like a old Mac Plus
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10107310846440.25833-100000 @zen.sys.uea.ac.uk>, a@sys.uea.ac.uk says...
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, David Ogg wrote:
> > In article <Pine.HPX.4.33.0107302242410.8552-100000@ux1>, > > mhug@students.depaul.edu says... > > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, David Ogg wrote:
> > > That is a pretty strong guarantee. could you make the other OS 'geos'? And > > > no that is _not_ a typo. or hey let's call dell and see if they will > > > preload QNX?
> > "I guarantee I can find it somewhere else" Just like I said.
> And where, pray tell, would you get, for example, a Dell Precision > (complete with cool case, quirky motherboard arrangement and proprietary > power supply) preloaded with QNX?
> Or did you mean "I can find something a bit like it somewhere else"?
I mean verbatim what I said. Name your specs and I'll find you a PC. you want QNX? NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NT, Windows (MS), Solaris, SCO Unix or Unixware?
If the OS is available, it's available on a new PC.
<disclaimer> (and this isn't a cop-out) This does not include asking for hardware and OS combinations where the OS doesn't support the hardware you asked for, then claiming I lose because said hardware won't work, ie: asking for AmigaOS for the Vic-20. </disclaimer>
<good faith> I won't just say it's available, I will point you to where you really can purchase the machine, and actually get a quote for the machine, with your OS of choice installed, at a very competative price. If you need me to show you the actual quote to prove it, then so be it. </good faith>
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <9k628s$vl@216.39.130.4>, o@oz.net says...
> David Ogg wrote:
> > Easily, maybe, I can also easily unintegrate IE from Win98 too, there is > > a way to do it ;) (Was quite an embarassment too, after MS said they > > couldn't!)
> How is it done? I'd like to give it a try on one of my experimental > systems I'm always tinkering with. :)
> -- Otter
You could get "98lite" which is a piece of software that lets you do a number of things...
1) Install 98 without IE. 2) uninstall IE from a preinstalled 98 3) install 98, and IE, without integrating them. 4) deintegrating IE from a preinstalled 98
You don't need to use this product though, as you can do it yourself if you feel comfortable juggling system files. I might try to dig up the instructions for the DIY method, if I get a chance.
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <tmf7qsq165p@corp.supernews.com>, s@cableone.com says...
> Just who is this $300 computer being buildt for? > some geek who likes 3" thick manuals about command lines > or who wants to play with electronics?
Actually we're just building it for the top-poster market ;)
> or is it for the people who can not afford the fancy computers > if its for the last you have to make the OS simple along the lines of Mac > or Geos or you will not sale many if its hard to use. and your stockholders > with not be happy.
> David Ogg wrote in message ... > >In article <t0n8mt46ifup9ilnuv1bnca1ov4nsm4@4ax.com>, usenet-20010705 > >@barnyard.co.uk says... > >> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Shaw > >> <xsteph@apple2.org.za> said:
> >> >Anyone who can use a command line as per the Apple II shouldn't find > adapting > >> >to Linux very difficult. It is only GUI users (like Windoze) who find > things > >> >"unfriendly".
> >> "Unix isn't unfriendly, it's just very particular about who its > >> friends are."
> >LOL I love that line ;)
> >There are things in linux that it really is harder to do than in > >Windows, but these things (like routing, wierd protocols like PPPoE) > >are things usually done by someone who should probably spend a little > >time learning anyway.
> >Sure linux has a learning curve, but it's a freaking computer, when did > >the notion that computers had to be usable by people who didn't want to > >learn anything become popular?
From: David Cantrell <usenet-20010@barnyard.co.uk> -
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:16:02 +0100
Local: Thurs, Aug 2 2001 3:16 am
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:54:43 GMT, David Ogg <david@nc.rr.com> said:
>There are things in linux that it really is harder to do than in >Windows
None of those things are worthwhile though :-)
> but these things (like routing,
What on earth gave you the idea routing was hard in Linux? IME, it's a damned sight easier than in anything from MS. It's even easier in OpenBSD and Solaris.
>
wierd protocols like PPPoE)
I see no point in PPPoE. Why would I ever want to use it? I'm not even sure what uses it other than some broken cable modems used by inferior providers of no service worthy of my consideration.
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I'm a total novice about DSL. I have cable, and my Linksys Router/Switch came with directions about setting up PPPoE, but seemed to imply that it's necessary for DSL. I certainly don't need it with cable.
Maybe that sheds some light on this sub-sub-sub-topic?
"David Cantrell" <usenet-20010@barnyard.co.uk> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:54:43 GMT, David Ogg <david@nc.rr.com> said:
> >There are things in linux that it really is harder to do than in > >Windows
> None of those things are worthwhile though :-)
> > but these things (like routing,
> What on earth gave you the idea routing was hard in Linux? IME, it's > a damned sight easier than in anything from MS. It's even easier in > OpenBSD and Solaris.
>
>
wierd protocols like PPPoE)
> I see no point in PPPoE. Why would I ever want to use it? I'm not > even sure what uses it other than some broken cable modems used by > inferior providers of no service worthy of my consideration.
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <V11a7.72167$UH6.11528@news02.optonline.net>, ashar@optonline.net says...
> I guess I'm a total novice about DSL. I have cable, and my Linksys > Router/Switch came with directions about setting up PPPoE, but seemed to > imply that it's necessary for DSL. I certainly don't need it with cable.
> Maybe that sheds some light on this sub-sub-sub-topic?
> "David Cantrell" <usenet-20010@barnyard.co.uk> wrote in message > ... > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:54:43 GMT, David Ogg <david@nc.rr.com> said:
> > >There are things in linux that it really is harder to do than in > > >Windows
> > None of those things are worthwhile though :-)
> > > but these things (like routing,
> > What on earth gave you the idea routing was hard in Linux? IME, it's > > a damned sight easier than in anything from MS. It's even easier in > > OpenBSD and Solaris.
See below ;)
>
> >
wierd protocols like PPPoE)
> > I see no point in PPPoE. Why would I ever want to use it? I'm not > > even sure what uses it other than some broken cable modems used by > > inferior providers of no service worthy of my consideration.
..."are things usually done by someone who should probably spend a little time learning anyway."
PPPoE is used mostly by DSL providers.
It's a pain in the butt to do in linux, when you have multiple distinct PPPoE clients that must be routed securely, not just "NATting" them together behind one PPPoE interface to the DSL.
As far as there being no point in it, if you get stuck having to do it, you have to do it. (and it sucks)
From: David Cantrell <usenet-20010@barnyard.co.uk> -
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 00:45:01 +0100
Local: Sat, Aug 4 2001 8:45 am
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:21:09 GMT, "Alan Sharkis" <ashar@optonline.net> said:
>I guess I'm a total novice about DSL. I have cable, and my Linksys >Router/Switch came with directions about setting up PPPoE, but seemed to >imply that it's necessary for DSL. I certainly don't need it with cable.
How odd. This 'ere DSL works with Proper Protocols over Ethernet.
>Maybe that sheds some light on this sub-sub-sub-topic?
Subject: Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <fihgmt8katlos8g67b87e0cq5qumt61@4ax.com>, David Cantrell <usenet-20010@barnyard.co.uk> wrote:
> I see no point in PPPoE. Why would I ever want to use it? I'm not > even sure what uses it other than some broken cable modems used by > inferior providers of no service worthy of my consideration.
Actually in my area, it's DSL that uses PPPoE...Qwest does it with some internal DSL modems from Intel so they can turn off the connection when the person isn't surfing the 'net.
Of course, you can get the DSL without having to use that, but it's an extra $10 a month plus you have to pay for the modem...they give you the Intel internal modem for free...
Greg B. -- Note: To e-mail me, replace nobody with gbuchner I don't get junk e-mail and intend to keep it that way. If you want to send me spam, go jump off a cliff and make the world a nicer place.