On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:07:50 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> The scales in hardware costs is never linear, due to the nature of mass
> production and R&D investments. This means that your machine may have cost
> you five-ten times the worth of my machine at home. Vista is pushing the
> financial barrier quite badly. Intel, for example could sell you a processor
> for $100, one that would handle a *lean* vista, rather than one which costs
> $400. Will Joe Average be wise enough to realise what a Vista-ready machine
> costs, in comparison with its Linux counterpart? I sure hope so.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
I agree, I built this computer with the sole purpose of having a solid
performing Linux machine. One I could game on, multi-media etc. It has fit
the bill very well. Actually a great machine for the $1000 I paid for the
parts. A comparable machine from Dell at the time was closer to $1700 with
XP installed.
As far as your quesiton about Joe Average. I don't ever recall the general
public being very wise when it comes to purchasing technology. To most
people a computer is just a computer. So long as it connects to the
internet, they can surf, order from Overstock.com, E-bay and check the
news and weather, most people are satisfied. So they tend to buy on price
alone, not really considering the hardware they are getting for their
money. Computers have come WAY down in price/performance. It will be
interesting to see what the major mfg's cook up for Vista offerings
considering the fairly heafty hardware requirements that it sports.
Cheers,
Brad
|
|
