digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at eweek.com

Cheap Laptops Bad for Vista, Good for Linux

eweek.com — Opinion: As laptops get cheaper, Linux and Windows XP are both making better business sense than Vista.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ubernoggin, on 12/22/2007, -24/+13No wonder Bill Gates hates the One Laptop Per Child project.
    • Elranzer, on 12/22/2007, -11/+15For *****'s sake, Bill Gates is not Microsoft anymore! He's too busy dealing with billions of dollars for charity, and at this point probably uses a Mac and doesn't give a ***** about Microsoft's competitors. Direct your fanboyish hatred toward the real CEO, the chair-throwing monkey Steve Ballmer.
      • sqrt7744, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5I don't know why you're getting dug down, you're right. Steve Ballmer is the new object of scorn and mascot of evil. Too many people are still living in the 90s Gates heyday.
      • hagbard72, on 12/22/2007, -2/+4Don't be such a smuck. Bill Gates does all that for tax reasons. He's still the largest shareholder and involved with MS.
      • tim04, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2yeah...he's planning to give away pretty much ALL of his money for "tax reasons". you're an idiot.
    • Wacer, on 12/22/2007, -3/+11Actually he doesn't, or I should say Microsoft, doesn't hate it that much. Most of these systems are going to really poor areas of the world and they have actually been pushing in this market because they can sell their operating system (XP) for a few bucks. Sure its the XP basic but they figure they can squeeze this market to their advantage.
    • prophetpimp, on 12/22/2007, -3/+3The likes of Intel hate it more because it a potential source of trouble in the future because people will see they no longer need a gazillion core processor.to run word and will cut into the margins they charge for the top end processors and would slow down the trend of built in obsolescence prevalent in the market.
  • chingy1788, on 12/22/2007, -55/+12Good for XP
    Linux = driver, wireless problems (unless the laptop is specifically designed for linux)
    • z0mbie2099, on 12/22/2007, -8/+30You missed the whole point of the article because you're too arrogant of a Windows fan-boy.
      • chingy1788, on 12/22/2007, -14/+3Anti Linux Party rules!!!
        • Yarkz, on 12/22/2007, -6/+2Anti windows parties > "Anti Linux Party rules"
        • daftman, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1You just proved his point! Well done.
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/22/2007, -9/+6Good for XP until the low-end hardware manufacturers stop making drivers for XP.
      • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -7/+3XP has got a lest another 5 or more years left in it.
        • B1663r, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2I have windows NT computers chugging along, I bet they have a couple of years left in them. I bet XP is around even longer than that.
        • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7XP has certainly got a long time left for most most hardware, but what about cheap hardware being put into windows vista computers?

          AFAIK, Vista's driver model is different enough that often the drivers aren't interchangable with those made for XP. When those low-end OEMs start shaving pennies off the cost of the hardware by not making XP/2000 versions of their drivers, it's going to get a bit more complicated.
          • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Your supposition that hardware makers exist to placate Microsoft and push it's standards instead of make a profit is wrong.

            OEMs will make/support whatever drivers which bring profit, period. I don't know about you, but I work in IT and have for a very long time and there's a lot of money to be made supporting older/obsolete equipment and selling it as well.
          • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2@smacksaw

            I don't suppose anything of the kind, I just don't see how making XP drivers for parts destined to wind up in laptops running vista is going to be a huge money-maker in a few years time.

            I suspect that OEMs will wind up making only some of their models XP compatible to save money while still appealing to those who want to use XP. In a few years, if you want to buy a new computer and put XP on it, you may have to hunt for one with a "Works With XP" sticker first.
          • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yes, that's why most manufacturers, even low end crap ass ones, are still making Windows 95/98 drivers... *rolleyes*
    • ZeRux, on 12/22/2007, -11/+3Linux is open source, you can write a driver on your own if you're not happy with hardware support
      Otherwise, stop whining and get back in Bill Gates' bed
      • spookyuk, on 12/22/2007, -5/+7And yet people wonder why Linux hasn't yet made it big time on the desktop! Write your own drivers? What planet do you live on? People buy a laptop to run applications not the operating system.
      • Koskun, on 12/22/2007, -2/+13You really expect the average computer user to be able to write their own driver? The sheer obnoxiousness of that statement is flooring.
      • mjPayne, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6Man, I run Linux for over 10 years and I haven't wrote any drivers myself. I can easily configure and compile the kernel but writing a driver is beyond me - or I believe most Linux users. Answers like this will only piss-off people that heard of Linux and want to try it.
      • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Typical Linux idiot, not everyone is a developer and can write their own drivers.

        Seriously, do you ***** WANT Linux to become mainstream and overtake Windows? I mean, *****, it's all you talk about, how open-source is the future, but yet when you ask any Linux fanboy or their mother, they spout this kind of *****: "oh, just write your own drivers", "oh, just use the open-source clone", "oh, if you want Windows programs go back to Windows". The ***** it so thick a chainsaw wouldn't ***** cut it! At least 70% of computer users out there have NO ***** idea what a driver really even is. And the same people just want to use MSN Messenger and iTunes! Linux fanboys need to get off their ***** high horse, and realize, you are NOT GETTING ANYWHERE with this kind of ***** attitute. If you want to make a dent in Windows, you have to be just as easy to use as Windows, and support the same software without a hitch. Fact, live with it.
        • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Stupid Digg comments... if I have the edit window open, and the time expires, I should still be able to submit the edit! Bah...

          I was going to add to the bottom...

          (And I write this on Ubuntu in Firefox, so I'm not a Linux hater. I WANT it to overtake Microsoft, I want Wine to become amazing and part of the OS, but it seems I'm ***** alone in wanting that *rolleyes*)
    • CitizenNorth, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I read the article and I agree. My hp laptop with an Intel Pro wireless 3945agb internal card is having all sorts of problems with linux and I'm sure that I'm not alone. I'm having a hell of a time setting up my wireless and if someone's figured out how to do it show me the way brotha.
      • stupidbrowner, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2What distro are you using?? I am on a linux computer using that card right now with no problems at all!
        Now, I am using Ubuntu, so the driver is pretty much set up automatically using the restricted driver manager.
      • CitizenNorth, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Awesome thanks it worked. I went through knoppix and fedora before and they were useless for my wireless card. I'm quite happy with Ubuntu.
      • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1ubuntu and broadcomm is also a problem. (i think its that kind, correct me if im wrong). My gf's laptop has it, and wow, what an incredible difference VS XP. ubuntu is way slower.

        but other than that wireless chipset i haven't heard of much else, its really coming along quite nicely.
    • prophetpimp, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Rather then the WIFI its teh ACPI that has been a real pain. Short cut keys always don't work and way too many times the solution is to just use noacpi or acpi=off just to get a functioning computer. But its not all linux fault because the industry uses non standard ACPI.
  • deadbaby, on 12/22/2007, -7/+79One of my friends bought a cheap Toshiba laptop from Best Buy running Vista. It's actually a decent laptop but it was dirt slow with Vista. Only had 512MB of RAM being shared for video RAM. It felt like the slowest computer I've used since the 486 days. She asked me if something was wrong with it because it was slower than her 5 year old XP laptop. Upgrading the RAM obviously fixed the problem but realistically you're not going to see 2GB in low end laptops for probably another 1-2 years. I can't believe Microsoft lets OEMs ship Vista /w 512MB of RAM. The minimum specs should be 1GB.
    • B1663r, on 12/22/2007, -3/+18Not to link spam or anything, but... new egg seems to have a wide varity of low end laptops that have one and two gig... It looks like they only have one or two left on the initial search that have 512MB, and those don't come with AERO.
    • halfway, on 12/22/2007, -1/+12That is what happened to my friend. He bought a very cheap Vista-based laptop with only 512 of RAM. He spent most of the time waiting for programs and the computer itself to load. I saw him more often using his roommates laptop than his because he didn't want to wait for everything to load. Add in the price of new RAM and getting it installed... he could have bought an even cheaper laptop and installed linux on it to come out with a better running machine.
      • scbysnx, on 12/22/2007, -7/+11"and getting it installed..." seriously? if he can't install his own ram he'd probably have some trouble using linux
        • trogdoor, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4It really depends on the laptop, some of them can be a real PITA ( And installing RAM on any laptop is going to be harder than installing it in a desktop ).
          • Koskun, on 12/22/2007, -2/+7Over the dozens and dozens of laptops I have seen installing more/upgrading the RAM is a simple matter of taking out one (small) screw, removing a panel, putting in a new piece/upgrading the old one, and put the panel back on and screw it back in. About the same, maybe a little simpler than desktops (especially those small form-factor bastards).
          • ferrariman60, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3It depends on the laptop, you're right. But by and large, 99% of laptops are very simple, one or two screw access panels to the RAM. I work on a lot of Dells, and the Inspiron D610 is awful with memory problems, since you have to take apart the whole damn laptop to get to one of the slots. It's awful. But almost every other laptop is very, very easy to install RAM for, ~20 seconds if you've opened the RAM package already and have the right screwdriver at hand.
          • scbysnx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I find it easier normally there's absolutely nothing else in the way on most
          • prophetpimp, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1its easier to handle on a laptop because there is only one slot and you dont have to deal with the wire tangles and awkward motherboard placement.
        • stupidbrowner, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5I don't think you need to know how to install RAM to use linux.
          Heck, my mom doesn't even know what RAM is and I gave her my laptop to work on with no problems.
          Linux is to the point now that if you get a user-friendly distro installed and setup by someone who knows what they're doing, the user needs to know LESS about computer than they did to use XP.
        • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I agree with stupidbrowner, I know quite a few people who just aren't comfortable with computer hardware, but are good with the software end and know ***** about Linux. Frankly, I used to be the other way as well.
      • B1663r, on 12/22/2007, -3/+6Have your friend unisntall Norton, and just go without virus protection, he will be a lot happier with his computer. I have found that 512MB works OK if you don't have virus application running. After a year on Vista, I am convinced that Virus protection is not a ~need~ anymore on windows systems. The only thing I have encountered was porn site in firefox, then UAC stoped it. But I would say, don't be downloading warez on that computer...
        • ferrariman60, on 12/22/2007, -2/+12I agree about pulling norton, but you'd be a fool to not run any virus protection. Although a computer user with some common sense can avoid most virus issues, even the best get a virus once in a while. Run something that's NOT a resource hog- like an enterprise edition of a virus program, or since most can't get that, AVG free edition. Norton is worse than McAfee security center, but neither one is as good, or as low profile, as the free AVG.
          • prophetpimp, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1if your really wanna run some *Malicious* programs saffely then you can use sanboxie. even on my XP machine i got rid of the AV because common sense and sandboxie has saved my ass.
        • mrsteve007, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3I've been running Vista without virus protection on my desktop and laptop for over a year now. No problems, the UAC *has* stopped every hostile program in it's path.
        • mjPayne, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Vista runs it's own antivirus, BTW.
        • jsebrech, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I would also suggest using AVG instead of norton. The reason norton is bundled is because norton actually pays oem's to bundle it. If it was about providing value to the customer, they would include AVG, but since it's about bottom-line, the craptastic norton gets its chance to mess things up.
      • esoxLucius4, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0Don't all computers run better when you don't have any virus applications on them. :)

        That's why people use antivirus apps in the first place. I would have o agree about Norton though. You're better off with AVG if you don't have enough RAM.
    • TheWindBlows, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4even 1GB of RAM is bad
      My friend hates Vista she's see's us using Linux and it seems decent and wants me to get Vista off there when she gets her laptop back dead keyboard or something...

      The comp that the HDD died on processed everything as fast or faster as it with '256MB' RAM on windows XP
    • iofthestorm, on 12/22/2007, -3/+14Actually, I've seen $600 laptops with 2GB of RAM occasionally, and almost always with 1GB. Vista has driven up stock RAM configurations because if the computer runs slow the average user isn't going to blame Vista (what's a Vista? Is that like a Window?) they're going to blame HP/Dell/etc.
      • victorh86, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3The average user will eventually blame Vista when their "computer guy" friend tells them Vista is to blame. I'm just surprised all these companies got away with stocking their computers with so little RAM for so long.
      • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1hahaha, dugg for this: "(what's a Vista? Is that like a Window?) "
        so true. I know many people that say stuff like that, it's hard not to laugh in their faces...
        It's the best though when someone starts talking about a computer when they think they know what they're talking about.
    • victorh86, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2MS knows 512 isn't enough, it's a tactic to get consumers to buy more add-ons after the initial purchase. If that wasn't obvious enough. That's how they screw you. Damn capitalist.

      I'm running Xubuntu on an old Vaio with a 1gz P3 with 512 RAM (maxed out) with ATI mobility M6 chipset. It runs fine. Not lightening fast but noticeably faster than XP.
      • prophetpimp, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1then you don't know how to run XP. only the performance based distros like gentoo, vector linux and slackware run faster then XP. But a stock XP and Any buntu derivatives see XP as being lighter and faster (Dump the AV programs, they just hog too much resource.)
        • victorh86, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0On the contrary, I do know how to run XP. I configured my machine(Core 2 Duo with 2gigs of DDR2) pretty well. It's lightening fast compared to Vista. Registry fixes, startup options, idle processes...I would dump any app I don't use anyway. And even if I didn't, they wouldn't waste resources if they're not running. And since I configured my machine to startup only apps I want, I know nothing is going to startup and waste resources when I don't it to. I didn't really need to do all those things because my machine is quite fast already(not the fastest), but hey every little bit helps.
        • dwbell, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Seriously that's a ridiculous statement. Stock Ubuntu is lighter and faster than XP, some of the derivatives of Ubuntu are seriously light and lightning quick. Gos (based on Ubuntu) runs faster from CD than XP runs on my kids computer!
        • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1I know how to run XP. The fact of the matter is, over time when the OS becomes to be bloated with software, ubuntu will continue to run faster than XP. XP needs anti-virus, ubuntu doesn't "NEED" it. and in XP, usually its an "always scanning" type, which hogs resources. I definitely noticed a nice speed increase with ubuntu VS XP. Maybe you dont know how to run ubuntu?
    • niallabrown, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Right and when 2 gigs is standard in low end machines MS will release it's new OS that needed 4 times that amount of ram to run correctly. Microsoft has to obsolete as many computers as possible to stimulate sales of Windows on new machines and to rub the backs of hardware manufacturers by pushing high end boxes. They will never be able to compete in the low end market as long as they lie and tell people that their pathetic features like flip 3D require a high end machine.
    • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Nah, they're working on windows 7 right now, which they are trying their best to keep it compact. I believe their kernel is 25MB at the moment... or when I last checked.
  • chugger1992, on 12/22/2007, -16/+14dupe.
    http://digg.com/linux_unix/Cheap_Laptops_Bad_for_V ...
    • Yarkz, on 12/22/2007, -3/+3You post that yet this is front page ATM lol!
    • gbarberi, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2How does this make it to the front page even after you posted this in the comments section? You posted the comment little over an hour before it even hits the front page.
    • Eldoo77, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2Put away your wand Dupe Fairy!
  • ShazerFox, on 12/22/2007, -11/+2...and in a year when hardware prices drop and XP is phased out?
    • benguild, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5Wtf? That didn't really make much sense. Phased out? Aren't Microsoft supporting it for another 4 years or something? Not just a year. And if by 'phased out' you mean not being sold pre-loaded onto laptops, that's already happened. The store I work at, we don't sell any XP laptops. They were gone the day Vista came out. But XP is still around, and *****, it's gonna be supported for a long while yet. It's not hard to get an install for it anyway...Heh.
      • B1663r, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Well on ShazerFox's behalf I offer, he was throwing up a straw-man argument to try and convince someone reading that Vista was your only option, and that Vista will never be widely supported(even though it is already widely supported and is the second most installed operating system by a wide margin). However, I don't think even he thinks that, I suspect he was just trying to generate a heated discussion.
      • ShazerFox, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1That's what I meant about XP being "phased out". Of course I know it's still supported, but Microsoft won't sell XP forever. When buying a new cheap laptop, soon the only options will be Vista or Linux. And when hardware prices drop that you can get 2 gigs of RAM in a machine for $500, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Linux laptops.
        • mjPayne, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Simple. People that needs run Windows or they need their "Supreme Commander" or "Barbie party" will still run Windows (cursing Vista I may add). Linux is for 1) guys that want freedom 2) they hate viruses and adware but don't want to spend money on a Mac 3)professionals that deal with Linux (and there are lots of Linux servers).
    • FISHMANPET, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Wait, what? Hardware gets cheaper over time? What about in 50 years when computers are implanted in our brains? We should all just stop buying computers and wait for neural computers.
      • monkeyboy7706, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1No way am I letting windows cerebral edition anywhere near my grey matter.

        Doctor: Its OK its just a virus.
        Patient: What can I do?
        Doctor: Here's a prescription for an IT specialist. In future install brainbuntu instead.
    • kretik, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Shut up you, they're having a fanboy fest here. No reality please.
  • Brennan, on 12/22/2007, -9/+16If these so called too cheap to use systems just came with more ram they would run Vista without a problem. RAM is so cheap now..but I guess people want the lowest price possible, no matter what the cost.

    And the crappy video card isn't a problem, a GMA950 runs aero just fine... If these cheap system just came with a minimum of a gig of ram...
    • B1663r, on 12/22/2007, -3/+6Im looking at the newegg laptop page, and there are very few low end laptops that come with only 512MB of ram. If you were running vista and all you were gonna do was email and light web browsing (a student for example), maybe play a movie or two, and listen to music, they are a perfectly acceptable computer, even though they wouldn't really be suitable for a power user.
      • josh1413, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Have you ever tried using Vista with 512MB of ram? It's simply not usable. Well, unless you don't mind waiting 5-10 minutes to open your browser upon startup. I had a friend who bought a cheap-o laptop that came with VIsta and 512MB of ram. He asked me if there was something I could do about it. I told him i can put Ubuntu on it, so I did, and he's perfectly happy.
    • willfe, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7...or if they could just run an OS that doesn't require a friggin' GIGABYTE of RAM to run reasonably well. Oh wait! They can! Yay Linux! :)
    • niallabrown, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Umm the whole idea is that the machines need to be cheap and now that they are cheap they will go cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. The cheaper they go the less likely Microsoft is to be able to compete in the high and low and market with the same OS. Personally I am already looking forward to the $90 laptop that is surly in the not to distant future.
  • anti_hax0r, on 12/22/2007, -8/+3duh
  • Akraz, on 12/22/2007, -12/+9A fine example is Gateway, selling Celeron-powered computers with only 512mb of RAM with Vista.. What the *****?!

    Working at TigerDirect... do you KNOW how hard it is to sell these laptops, let alone, get cheap ass customers to upgrade to 1gb ram?

    people complain it slow... YOU NEED 2GB RAM AT LEAST GOD DAMMIT
    • estvir, on 12/22/2007, -10/+4No, 1GB is fine.
      • TheWindBlows, on 12/22/2007, -4/+6thats where yiur wrong.
        laptop 1GB core x2 Vista vs desktop 256MB celeron XP
        The 256 MB XP Desktop comes out the champ...

        Vista = 32-bit architectural FAIL...

        My opinion is still the same Vista was designed horribly for a 32 bit operating system standards.
        If were were in 64-128 bit range then It'd be otherwise...
        • grumpyrain, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5What the hell are you talking about. For a start, you must realise that your desktop will have a faster hard drive than your laptop. Besides that, what do you think 64 or 128 bit computing will bring you? You can get Vista 64 bit and it works flawlessly providing your peripherals offer 64 bit drivers, but this has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with addressing a larger amount of memory.
      • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4True. And smoking to the point of lung cancer is fine because hey - I can live with one lung that has diminished capacity while the other one is removed.

        Quality of life? We're just talking about breathing, not if it's painful or difficult to breathe.

        1GB of RAM for Vista. ***** brilliant. Brilliant like losing a lung.
        • Akraz, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Thank you. Not sure why im being dugg down.
    • andyakadum, on 12/22/2007, -1/+7Just stick Linux on there, thats more than happy with 512mb ram, and it wont cost you anything.
      • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1if you just surf the net, linux will be happy with 256mb :)
        maybe even 128?
    • andycr512, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Why the heck would my OS need 2GB of ram for doing nothing? Linux is -perfectly- happy with 256MB, and the only reason I need 1GB is because Eclipse is much more comfortable with that much...
  • RickyBennett, on 12/22/2007, -14/+1my laptop runs vista real good i just with aero wold work dose the base score half to be 2.0 + for aero to work ??
  • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -2/+63Why is there a picture of a MACBOOK PRO and "Cheap Laptop" as the title? Kind of an oxymoron, don't you think?

    • Jancis, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5because you are at digg.com . everything here is apple/mac/ubuntu :P
      • Dropperbr, on 12/22/2007, -5/+1Nah we just know whats best!
        • Jancis, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0i didnt say its bad here :) why do you think i am here? :) (i have gutsy gibbon with mac4lin themes ;) )
  • SlyProfanity, on 12/22/2007, -15/+15Sounds to me like the same idiots a couple years back buying windows xp laptops with 128-256mb memory. Get over yourself vista haters put xp or linux for that matter on a pc made for win98 and see how well it runs.
    • Shananra, on 12/22/2007, -0/+11Xubuntu runs fine on win98 laptops. Bit slow, yes, but I haven't had any issues with it. managed to get quite a bit more life out of the thing.

      XP wouldn't run on it though, but Linux will if you go with a lightweight distro.
    • JenadaeXX, on 12/22/2007, -0/+18The issue is that they slap "Vista Ready" on laptops that run it at snail pace
      • Wacer, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Anything for customer lock-in. They don't have to please the customer at first, just get them trapped. Doesn't help with so many illiterate, ignorant customers.
      • victorh86, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1They should have put stickers saying "Vista Nearly Ready"
      • monkeyboy7706, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Vista ready just means it runs vista, Doesn't mention being able to run anything else at the same time.
    • grumpyrain, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9Or for that matter, chuck 98 on a Vista Ready PC and you will boot up in about 5 seconds.
    • init100, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5I ran Windows XP on my P2 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 8 GB HDD a couple of years ago. It was slow, but not that slow.
      • aaabatteries, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I've done the same thing.
        just trouble switching between applications...which is to be expected.
        it worked fine though for basic web-browsing...but not for video/flash.
    • dwbell, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I've put linux on computers built for Win95 and had them run great, it's a matter of choosing your distro.
    • biohazd, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I've thrown bog standard Ubuntu (Gnome and all) on an old handmedown 500mhz lappy (192mb RAM), not quite the 200mhz/128mb PC I was running '95 on back in the day but it runs great, even with OpenOffice.
    • ninja0, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1ever heard of DSL? "damn small linux", consumes 50 MB on a CD and around 100MB when its in memory.
  • TGDuff, on 12/22/2007, -4/+16I run a fresh install version of Vista on my Dell with 1GB of RAM and it runs just fine with Aero turned on. Anyone who says 2GB is required has either never used Vista or does not know how to uninstall bloatware.
    • Soave, on 12/22/2007, -1/+9Definitely. Removing bloatware is the best thing you can possibly do to help your computer.
    • iofthestorm, on 12/22/2007, -1/+32GB makes it great though. With 2GB of RAM the prefetching can do its magic and make everything load quite fast. 1GB is fine I'm sure but 2GB is also quite cheap these days ($60, I even saw 4GB for $70 on newegg once), although I think laptop RAM might be a bit more expensive.
      • willfe, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Guh. Running 2GB here on a new laptop with a 64-bit dual-core 1.7GHz (32-bit Vista, though) and it's butt-slow. This thing crawls. Run more than one thing at once and it's molasses. Thrashes to disk nearly constantly, and it never seems to help.

        To my infinite amusement, Ubuntu under VMware *on this Vista installation* is more responsive as a guest (in the friggin' emulator) than Vista is as the host.
        • Soave, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Hmm, that's weird. Is it because of the 64/32 bit difference? I have 2 GB on my HP laptop and Vista runs faster than anything else I've used.
        • Wesside, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Just because all the other computers you've ever used suck is hardly grounds for comparison Soave.
      • tim04, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1too much porn there willfe. those things aren't exactly "free" as they don't come alone. time to reformat and reinstall windows.
        also, why would you buy a "new" laptop with dual-core 1.7ghz? 2ghz are pretty cheap now and make a pretty big difference.
    • andycr512, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3I used it for 6 months. It may "run" fine, but it just feels slow, especially if you open a few programs to even use the computer for something useful. There are inexplicable delays at random times, and it feels like working underwater. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to speed differences than most, but it was incredibly frustrating and I could not stand it. I ended up switching back to XP, and later Linux.
  • Coy0te, on 12/22/2007, -7/+7They're also good for xp... Oh and dupe. Burried
  • gbarberi, on 12/22/2007, -2/+22I thought this looked familiar. This EXACT same article was on the front page three weeks agp.
    http://digg.com/linux_unix/Cheap_Laptops_Bad_for_V ...
  • EserVerx, on 12/22/2007, -7/+4If Linux supported tablet notebooks, i would choose it hands down.
  • gudnbluts, on 12/22/2007, -3/+17I'm exactly the kind of person this (minimalist to the point of being pointless) article's about. I bought this lappy just before Vista was released. It's got 512mb RAM, and had all the "Vista ready" labels (which I knew was bollocks). I've been happily trundling on with XP, but started thinking it'd be nice to wean myself off OSs that can disable your system for arbitrary licensing reasons, and bits of hardware for DRM reasons. Plus it'd be nice to try something new, and good to have an OS that I know will continue to be supported, whatever MS decides they want to do, So here I am, linuxing away. MS lost me, and I'm perfectly happy with that.
  • Koskun, on 12/22/2007, -1/+14It is kind of funny when commenter's here say something like "low end laptops on newegg have 1-2 gig of RAM, one or two have 512". Now, go to your parents, aunts and uncles, even grandparents that have a computer and ask them if they have ever even heard of Newegg. Most all of these cheap laptops are going to come from HP (has a sub 500 dollar one available with 512 now), Dell, Compaq. Some will even come from those after Thanksgiving deals you see plastered all over.

    The issue isn't so much with Microsoft, it is with these manufacturers. They know they will run slow, they can get money from upgrades when the consumer calls up asking for help because their laptop is running slow. You want to get mad at someone and vent take it up with the manufacturers.
    • iofthestorm, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Well, I've seen low end laptops at stores with 1-2GB of RAM too, in the $500-600 price range. You have to watch for bargains but they are there. Eg. this is $700 but they used to advertise a lot cheaper ones before at Fry's before the holiday season started. Still, for $700 it's a pretty good laptop with a C2D.
      http://www.netaffilia.com/ad/electronics/frys/i/20 ...
    • grumpyrain, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Find me a Dell laptop with less than 1GB RAM. From what I can see, they are no longer even offered. HP / Compaq do (really the same company). My Dell laptop is 3 years old and has 1GB. My old desktop from 2001 has 512MB, so I can not see why OEMs would be trying to push 512MB in December 2007.
  • databoy, on 12/22/2007, -7/+9It never ceases to amaze me how many lobotomised imbeciles buy computers. A computer is just a production appliance. You do not buy a 4 cylinder car to tow a motor home and you do not buy a tank to go grocery shopping. When it comes to computers rational thinking goes out the window to be replaced by irrational penny pinching tight ass logic. Look at your needs and buy the computer and the OS to do your job and not because the OS is freeware. A Linux or Windows professional on $150K per annum is going to buy the fastest laptop available so he can service his clients effectively and efficiently. The tightwads on digg who are always posting complaints about XP, Vista and Microsoft are just revealing their intellectual stupidity. Microsoft are where they are because no-one at the time wrote and successfully marketed a similar product. Yes, I know of the alternatives and they are all bankrupt or out of business. Red Hat are where they are because a lot of corporations require access to code to run successful businesses.

    Linux has its place and Windows has its place. It takes intelligence to recognise the right hardware and software for the right application. The guy who wrote the original article may be a computer writer but he has never worked in the dog eat dog commercial profit making world otherwise he would not be blowing hot air out of his ass.
    • willfe, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7Heh. Such a funny troll :) Have some food. Om nom nom.

      I'm one of those professionals you described, btw, and no, I didn't piss away two grand on the absolute fastest notebook I could buy. I bought what I *needed* and put the right OS on it (Linux runs on most anything; Vista whines, thrashes, and vomits bile on anything with less than a gig of memory).

      And to address the rest of your rant -- Linux ain't about the money, never has been, never will be. If your sole solution to "make it go faster" is "throw more money at it to buy more hardware to force it to go faster," you'll likely never understand *why* money isn't an issue most Linux developers/contributors are concerned with.
      • andycr512, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I always find these kinds of arguments ridiculous. No, I don't run Linux because it's free; perhaps some clueless fanboys do, but I don't. I run it because it runs GCC, GDB and Eclipse, which for the project I am working on is several times faster than Visual C++. The debugger in MinGW doesn't work very well on Windows. As such, I use it because it fits my needs best.
    • mjPayne, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4"A Linux or Windows professional on $150K per annum is going to buy the fastest laptop available". Yeah, right. People buy Ferraris (or Porches) because they need to service their clients effectively and efficiently. "Engage brain before putting mouth into gear" please.
    • init100, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3"A Linux or Windows professional on $150K per annum"

      You have that much in salary as a plain IT professional? Here, $150K is what our prime minister get, or in the private sector, someone in the upper management of an intermediate-sized or large corporation.
    • SacraBos, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I'm a pretty well off professional. I'm the type that would buy the low end PC's, since that what most of my clients employees have. I'm not going to develop and test on the highest machine I can afford, then wonder why it sucks when I deploy on the low-end stuff most companies shuffle off on employees. Besides, where I've loaded Linux workstations, I can get much better performance on low end machines than Windows on the same or even higher-tier machines - at a significant cost savings to the client. This is called "Value Added", and generally a good selling point in most industries.
  • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -3/+5Whenever I see these articles I am reminded of my own experience - one that no one seems to talk about - that a really awesome laptop is just adequate with Vista but with Linux it's amazing.

    I don't agree that the point of these discussions should be about the lowest common denominator in laptops. This one is a 1.6 Celeron with 768mb RAM and XP and Kubuntu are both just OK on it but I wouldn't want to make this my main computer. It's in my kids' room. My others are both dual core with 2GB and 4GB of RAM - the 4GB has dedicated graphics as well. It's just amazing. The 4GB Intel laptop on Vista is still slower than the 2GB AMD running Kubuntu. Way slower.
    • iofthestorm, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Are you running Vista x64? If not those 4GB of RAM are going to waste due to the way the memory addressing works in 32 bit OSes.
      • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3No - not anymore. It's all for Kubuntu, baby!!!
        • iofthestorm, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Nice. Personally I have no problem with Vista so I haven't bothered installing the Kubuntu 7.10 amd64 dvd I burned, otherwise I would have installed it by now. On my old computer, Kubuntu was useful in that it was faster than XP but even then I never really needed it, and now with a much faster PC I don't feel the need to run Linux at all. I still support Linux ideals, I just don't see it as the right fit for myself at this moment.
    • diggymow, on 12/22/2007, -4/+1Sorry mate but there is no way that's true, I've got Vista on 2gig of ram and I've played around in Kubuntu on the same system and there was no speed difference at all. Kubuntu booted slower in fact. You don't need to lie to make linux sound cool.
      • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Then you're the exception, not the rule. For the 5 machines I have in my house I can tell you that they all boot faster into Kubuntu than XP or Vista. Firefox is faster, VLC Media Player is faster...hell, even stuff on Wine is faster like Winamp. I actually switched rooms because my Firefox on XP is so slow it's delaying after I was typing anything.

        Your experience is dubious to me.
        • diggymow, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Fair enough but if you've got a Vista machine with 4GB of ram and it's in any way slow then there's some real issues with your setup there.
      • andycr512, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2The -only- reason Kubuntu booted slower is because Windows is still loading endless amounts of services behind the scenes after you get to the desktop, while Linux loads all the services before loading the desktop.
  • nosretap, on 12/22/2007, -5/+12They don't get it. UNIX is mature. The code is tight, and it is written by PROGRAMMERS. M$ is not mature. It is re-invented with each iteration. With bloat ware in mind to accelerate the hardware race.

    Tight code does not need as much memory or CPU. M$ bloat-where ;) just needs more memory and CPU cycles. I don't think anyone can argue that.

    I am happy with cheap laptops running 'NIX's/'NUX's. If you upgrade to M$, add memory and a license ($).

    'NIX's/'NUX's will win in the end.

    Funny, wine can get "most" M$ stuff running, and pretty much all of the 'N?X's can compile across all distributions any open source app. Make it easy for the end user and ... Tune in soon.

    Spending money on a "M$ drug fix" or going cold turkey and using something that works,,, Expensive or,

    My $0.02 worth.
    I know my wallet has more money in it ;)
    PS, I still have a server running (old)BSD on a 166MHz/1GB HD/64MB RAM. Smokes! I guess the chip(s) will die someday...
    • evilspoons, on 12/22/2007, -3/+3Easy on the commas there dude. *NIX may be mature, but yet again, there's the issue that it is not easy to use or it doesn't do what the average consumer needs. Sure, it can browse the web and run a decent productivity suite, but when Joe Blow's daughter comes home with a copy of Barbie Horse Adventures and it doesn't work on his laptop, he's not going to give a crap about code maturity. He wants it to run. Windows has the market, and it's gonna stay that way for a very long time.
      I've used Ubuntu and Gentoo linux, and have had both working just fine. But I've switched back to Windows, and I'm perfectly happy.
      By the way, *NIX is written by programmers, hobbyists and professionals. Windows is written by entirely by hired professionals. I'm not saying they're better, but Windows is not squeezed from magical leprechauns onto their development systems. It's put together by programmers too.
      • willfe, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7Nonsense. It has a similar learning curve to Windows. If you are first exposed to a computer running Unix, it will tend to be easier to use than a seemingly "foreign" Windows box (or a Mac). Whereas if you grew up working with Windows boxen, they make more sense than a Unix machine would.

        Windows is *losing* the market. It is slipping, rapidly. It is now fairly common folklore that the best "upgrade" you can make for Vista is to replace it with XP. That's *not* good news for the Microsoft flagship.

        Whether it's written entirely by hired professionals or not, Windows is getting bigger, slower, and uglier, and it's causing greater and greater discomfort to the people Microsoft depends on for its bottom line. Fewer and fewer of them each month are buying into it.
        • vertexoflife, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I grew up on a Window's box, used it for 12 years (i'm 18) and I've had linux for almost 2 and it feels much easier than windows.
        • condeh, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Willfe,
          how is Windows losing the market by people going from Vista to XP? Not good news, I agree, but still no change to the market share.
        • thailand1972, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Willfe - Vista is future-proofed. It's heavy but it's built for future markets that ship with 2GB RAM +. No different to PS3 which didn't sell well in the beginning but now is selling very well. While Vista sales may not be great now, they will be in the future (12 months from now).

          Can Linux and Windows not simply co-exist anyway? A choice is always good.
    • thailand1972, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Will the OS be as difficult to understand as you tried to explain it though?
  • drag, on 12/22/2007, -1/+7""Linux has its place and Windows has its place. It takes intelligence to recognise the right hardware and software for the right application. The guy who wrote the original article may be a computer writer but he has never worked in the dog eat dog commercial profit making world otherwise he would not be blowing hot air out of his ass.""

    Yawn.
    I don't know what world you live in but the average person has a mortgage, is making medical payments on something, kids, makes around 30-40K a year. Going out and dropping 5-10% of their yearly income on a mobile computer isn't realy a option for most people. Even people who are wealthier would rather spend their money on something more important,like car payments or eating at a nice place, rather then drop $2K down on some huge gaming laptop.
    • nobelief, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Because only gaming laptops can use Vista properly? :linuxlogic:
  • aliguana, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3"As laptops get cheaper, Linux and Windows XP are both making better business sense than Vista."
    by that logic, does it mean OSX makes absolutely no business-sense at all? :p
    • nontitle, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Yes.
      • aliguana, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2(I knew the answer already, I was just having fun with the fanboys)
    • MattBD, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Let's face it, outside of certain industries (notably publishing, web design etc), Macs aren't that common. After all, most businesses aren't all that bothered about a nice GUI or the case, and wouldn't be prepared to pay more for them. Sony Vaio's rival Macs in looking nice, but you don't often see them in a business environment either. Businesses generally want a solid, inexpensive machine that does its job well.
      Many businesses probably would like the increased reliability of a Unix-based OS, but there are far cheaper options for that (loads of Linux distros, as well as the BSD's).
  • chenkersthecat, on 12/22/2007, -1/+9I'm running Vista Home Basic on a Dell laptop with 512MB of RAM. I don't mind using it because it's helping me develop my general ability to tolerate frustration and distress. However, my girlfriend outright refuses to use it. Instead, she opts to drive 30 minutes to the university computer lab whenever she needs to do computer based uni work. Microsoft's decision to allow Vista to ship on new computers with less than 1gb of ram is an incredibly poor business decision.
  • diggymow, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2Buried. Cheap laptops are great for Vista, slow laptops are bad for Vista. Sub $1000 laptops are shipping with 1gig of ram already and needing 2gig of ram to run Vista is a downright lie for those for are only interested in email and photos. As soon as we see 1gig as the standard Vista will really be at its sweet point. Sub $1000 units for email, photo, etc. Premium prices 2gig+ for everyone else.
    • victorh86, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Properly configured, Vista should run decently on 1gig. But it's also noticeable not fast. Microsoft did a poor job with the OEM/default configuration.
  • jameshighmore, on 12/22/2007, -1/+7I thought I'd just add my opinion to the whole Windows/Linux discussion.

    I've only ever used Windows operating systems throughout my life, but last night I tested out a Ubuntu live CD I found somewhere and was pretty impressed with what I saw. What impressed me most was the fact that it didn't once hang or slow down. After using Vista on my laptop for several months now, I can tell you that this was a welcome change. Rarely a day goes by without Vista crashing and having a fit over something minor, causing me to restart the system which sometimes results in explorer not even bothering to load (anyone else get this occasionally? It's quite funny seeing an error message stating that Windows cannot load). Don't get me wrong, I think Vista is a great OS. and you may say that crashes and slowdowns are to be expected on a below-par laptop.

    However, the laptop I own is a 17" $4000 beast. THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING!

    I can't actually remember where I was going with this, but I think my point was meant to be that Linux is also a good choice for high-end laptops as well as less expensive ones.
  • thailand1972, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3"What impressed me most was the fact that it didn't once hang or slow down."

    If that impresses you, you must have upgraded straight from Windows ME to Vista on your low-spec machine, and somehow missed out on Windows 2000 / XP altogether.
    • andyakadum, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Nope, XP was still dodgy for my proprietary friends.
  • joeanon, on 12/22/2007, -4/+1Sure, better than Vista, but still not as compatible or useful as XP and face it VISTA has a lot more responsibilities in preventing malware than Linux.

    If linux was the popular OS it would too be slower. XP is more ideal for cheap laptop IF you consider the demographics that will be buying.

    If you only look at the laptop as hardware, then sure, from a geek perspective you can do more on cheaper hardware with linux, but for a home user, that simply is not true.

    The people who need computers the most will get these systems and then be disappointed and would certainly be better of with an XP system and all the 3d games, educational software, apps and hardware compatibility that Linux simply doesn't offer and gaming wise, may never in it's lifespan at the rate it's going.

    As it stands ID software is more or less single handedly holding Linux gaming together. Had they not saved OpenGL Linux gaming would be even more of a dream than it is now. Now less they waste their money porting to Linux just to support he community.

    Get over the cheapness of Linux. We live in a capitalist word and you need profit to keep your product up dated. As the Linux platform expands it will gobble up MORE AND MORE common user and less and less programers. As this happens it will become harder and harder to support without a well paid, well organized company pushing not ONLY the technology, but the standards and competative business practices.

    THAT is what it takes to be a sucessful OS in the long run. Most of Linux support is from it's community not from it's marketability and that's a major problem.

    In many ways it means the Linux community is artificially holding linux market shares up while hypeing the OS as much as humanly possible (at their price range). It's really a giant turn off toward Linux being promises time and time again how Linux is so easy and being disappointed to learn it's still a very messy OS and lacking in much of the same ways it has been since the 90's.

    It's a great OS, but it really hasn't made any REAL effort toward becoming a Windows killer or a desktop OS. It's gotten praise, and advertising, but mostly fanboy reviews, blogs and articles spouting out it's list of advantages while never mentionally it's failure points

    Certainly, you must realize you are giving people bad advice when suggesting the move over to Linux unless these people meet a rather ever shrinking demographics of people who use their desktop as little as possible and don't care about gaming.

    It's my opinion that more and more adults are getting to gaming and almost every famaily will be happier to have gaming on their PC.

    Face it, most people don't even need office software nor will they effectively use accounting software. Most people just surf, read email and play games. I know because I've done on site repair for years and I see the average user all the time.

    When you consider marketability. I just don't see who I'd sell Linux to. Old people ? Sorry I'd have to recommend Mac. Poor people ? Well... I'd probably just give them a copy of XP and they'd be a lot happier than having to settle for Linux. Plus, how can you push cheap computers on people, people who probably don't know how to use a computer well, and then throw the learning curve of Linux at them also.

    It will work at first because people are stupid and buy the cheapest ***** they can find, but the home user is not going to be happy losing the apps and functionality they had in XP.

    The problem is XP and Vista just aren't that bad. The fanboy powered media MUST make Vista appear as bad as possible, but the truth is that it's easily better than ME and the media didn't attack ME this much.

    It goes to show the motivations are not technical as much as they are marketing. Vista is easily the most secure version of Windows to date and that's a good enough reason.
    • condeh, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Are you allowed to make comments longer than the article? Dude....
    • Jawshie, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Linux is not Windows. You may think: "Well, Jawshie, I know this. Obviously it is not because I can not run my Windows apps on it." What I really mean is that there is always going to be a learning curve if you are a convert from any OS to any other OS or even from no OS. I have been Linux exclusive for almost a year and have no trouble being productive and efficient. The learning curve comes when finding that some of the applications you use don't exist for Linux then you either give up immediately or go out and find what WILL run on Linux. For example:" Boo-freakin-hoo Office 07 doesn't run natively on Linux. Oh wait... theres this program called OpenOffice... I think I can write my reports in that!"
      When you talk about Linux you cant just generalize it like you can with Windows. With thousands of different distributions available, each with its own customized GUI, there is a different way of doing things in each. Some, like Lindows, try to make a more Windows-like GUI whereas others try to do it the way they want to. Linux is not a cheap Windows. Don't expect it to work the same. I once read somewhere that it doesn't make sense to right click on a desktop to change the resolution. It makes sense to put it under "System Preferences." (I know you can change it other ways but this is an example)
      As for Linux being difficult, I think a GNOME interface is very intuitive. If I was not a techy power user who likes to tinker, I would be fine with just staying with the GNOME or even the KDE interface and running applications that I need to. I would go to sites like GetDeb or CNR.com to get more applications, double click and click install, and find the application in the applications menu. I would use GUI configuration tools to make video changes (assuming you have a compatible video card(required for any OS) ) just like in Windows. If I needed something advanced configured or something went wrong, I would take it to a local shop or a friend who knew what they were doing and have it fixed just like in Windows.
      I would never actually have to use the command line. Is the command line what you call sloppy or requires a learning curve? Sorry, cry about it.
      Linux is not Windows. Stop expecting the same things from it and make rational and constructive criticism based on that.
      Games. Games games games games games. Thats all I hear people bitch about too. This article was about running Linux on LOW END machines. Last I checked, most games that people want to play will not run on a LOW END machine. If you MUST play games to be productive (how the hell this works, I am not sure...), then get a Windows desktop that can run the games that you want. It is a shame that most commercial games will not run on Linux natively (or new ones with Cedega, WINE, Crossover..) but it is a fact of life. In a fit of fanboy-ism I will say that it is a shame that most Windows plagues will not run on Linux either.
      For those who wish to tell me to use WINE..... bite me. Linux was never made to run Windows apps. Linux is not a cheap Windows. It's a miracle of modern programming that we have the ability to run some Windows executables on Linux but it should not be relied on. It is a temporary workaround at best. I hate that I have to use it to run some of the games that I play.
    • PeachCobbler, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Wow. No commercial backing? Ever heard of Red Hat, Novell, or Canonical? Many computer users really do not care about their operating system or much less know what it is. They use Windows because it comes with their computer. Companies develop drivers for Windows because of its market share. Additionally, there are plenty of people who have gripes with Windows but live with it because they don't know about alternatives. Using modern Linux distributions, you can very easily be productive in most cases. It's often just a matter of being open-minded. Unfortunately, many people aren't open-minded, but when you have an OS thrust down your throat when its preinstalled, that OS and its native software are what you are familiar and comfortable with. In the end it boils down to this: If a world-wide community of developers and end-users can create a sustainable, usable OS while being a minority, once it becomes mainstream it has even more going for it.
  • rigwit, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3What amazes me is how dupes like this keep hitting the front page. What happened to the dupe checking on Digg?
  • condeh, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Linux, as an OS is mature, and well known to be stable.
    Vista is not so well known to be stable, tho in my experience its been A*.
    The problem I hear from a lot of people is not the Linux is hard to use, but that the software is simply not as polished or intuitive (yes, I accept that peoples idea of polished and intuitive is effected by software used on an MS system), so it just takes longer to get things done.
    Case in point, at this moment i'm writing a training manual, and I need to have good control over the formatting, a hyperlinked TOC etc... I have Vista/Debian dual boot on my laptop (1GB ram,tho some is shared with Vid - runs with out any slow downs). Im using Vista & Word simply because the thought of using OO in Debian makes me shudder.
  • MKnopfler, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1I wonder when people is actually going to try Vista instead of trashing it without even installing it and using it. If this was the case of the author, he would not be saying what he is saying. Back in June, I bought a $500 laptop for my wife, which is running Vista Home Premium, and it is running very nicely without problems. Furthermore, I installed Vista Ultimate in a 4+ year old laptop with specs significantly lower than what you can buy today for under $1000, and there are barely no complaints. I'll explain that. This laptop has an old nVidia card, which nVidia didn't release a Vista driver for it. That is not a Vista problem is an nVidia problem. Even so, I still can run Aero with no problems. My recommendation is to try it by your-self like I am doing (you can read all about it at my blog The Pragmatic User) because most of the time the things you read about Vista are simply not true.
    • UKsHaDoW, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1My mom braught a brand new cheap desktop. It had 512Mb of ram and had Vista. It ran Like crap. Every application took ages to load. For example closing a tab firefox took forever.

      I fixed by adding a extra 512mb. But vista should not be used on low spec pc's
  • flair1, on 12/22/2007, -3/+4Vista is an absolute and utter failure, at least in the business world. Not many CIOs let their employees run that garbage bloated buggy ***** software. Most companies are still standardized on XP and aren't changing.
  • newbyx86, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0The image for this topic should be a picture of Captain Obvious speeding to digg.com... not a laptop...

    Honestly, no *****?
  • stutimandal, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Actually you can also say:

    Expensive Laptops: OK for vista, great for Linux

    I don't know what world Bill Gates' men live in. But they seem to make a product which is ultimate resource hungry most of the time for doing simplest tasks.
  • pkl266, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Dugg from a cheap, former Vista, laptop running Linux
  • Feep, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Can someone give me a solid example of "buggy" or "bloatware" as applied to Windows Vista? I'm not trolling, but I'm a Vista-user with moderate computing experience (and, to be fair, a highly powerful desktop) and have had zero complaints after removing UAC. Most programs load nearly instantaneously, Aero is shiny, and there's only one bug I can easily find (I always get a "iTunes has stopped working" message after shutting it down).

    For low-end machines, I absolutely agree, Vista is a nightmare. But I can't really imagine things getting much faster from my end, and all this Vista hate just has me confused.
    • aliguana, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I think the Vista haters are either a) people who have switched to Linux, and are feeling a little envious or b) XP people who can't afford/don't want to pay for it.
      In eight months, when most people have Vista in some form or other via new machines, the whole argument will be a non-starter
  • digitalb0y, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1I got a thinkpad T61 with a top of the line processor and components like nVidia graphics card,but only got 1gb RAM cause I could always add more later. Vista was crawling. Its slower than my older Dell 1705 with a slower processor with XP & Linux . I put Saybayon Linux on it and works great! Specially the desktop is much nicer with Compiz fusion than Vista anyways. So I guess I don't need the memory update for quite a while now.
  • frontporsche, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1So, maybe Vista is the SUV of operating systems.
  • blackbrutha, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1***** vista
  • dpfrz, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0Simply put, Vista sux
  • over1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0http://rmooosh.net/vb/
    http://rmooosh.net/video/
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c2-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c3-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c4-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c5-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c6-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c7-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c8-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c9-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c10-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c11-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c12-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c13-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c14-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c15-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c16-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c17-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c18-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c19-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c20-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c21-0.html
  • over1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0http://rmooosh.net/vb/
    http://rmooosh.net/video/
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c2-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c3-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c4-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c5-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c6-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c7-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c8-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c9-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c10-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c11-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c12-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c13-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c14-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c15-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c16-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c17-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c18-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c19-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c20-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c21-0.html
  • over1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0http://rmooosh.net/vb/
    http://rmooosh.net/video/
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c2-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c3-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c4-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c5-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c6-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c7-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c8-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c9-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c10-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c11-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c12-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c13-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c14-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c15-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c16-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c17-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c18-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c19-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c20-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c21-0.html
  • over1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0http://rmooosh.net/vb/
    http://rmooosh.net/video/
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c2-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c3-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c4-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c5-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c6-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c7-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c8-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c9-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c10-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c11-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c12-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c13-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c14-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c15-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c16-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c17-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c18-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c19-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c20-0.html
    http://rmooosh.net/games/c21-0.html
  • Ro7ee, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0http://forum.ro7ee.com/

    http://www.ro7ee.com/

    http://youtube.ro7ee.com/
  • over1, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0http://rmooosh.net/vb/t4392.html
    http://rmooosh.net/vb/f86.html
    http://rmooosh.net/vb/f87.html
  • ll6ksa, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0http://vb.ll6.com/

    http://voice.ll6.com

    http://chat.ll6.com

    http://games.ll6.com/

    http://photos.ll6.com/

    http://www.ll6.com/url/super.html

    http://www.3sl.com/

    http://voice.3sl.com/

    http://games.3sl.com

    http://vb.3sl.com/

    http://pic.3sl.com/

    http://chat.3sl.com/

    http://vb.3sl.com/f31.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f18.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f15.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f51.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f8.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f32.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/f27.html

    http://dir.3sl.com/c2.html

    http://pic.3sl.com/cat1.htm

    http://games.3sl.com/cat19.html

    http://vb.3sl.com/sitemap
  • meznh, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0http://prog.meznh.com/

    http://www.meznh.com/index_chat.html

    http://chat.meznh.com/index_chat.html

    http://chat.meznh.com/voice.htm

    http://mobile.meznh.com/index.php?cat=blue

    http://mobile.meznh.com/indexgames.html

    http://vb.meznh.com/

    http://www.meznh.com/

    http://chat.meznh.com/

    http://mobile.meznh.com/

    http://games.meznh.com/

    http://games.meznh.com/c22-0.html

    http://chat.meznh.com/saudi.html

    http://links.meznh.com/

    http://links.meznh.com/sub4.html

    http://links.meznh.com/cut2.html
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.