Get a Linux-powered Dell laptop for $299
The $299 Inspiron 15n runs Linux, but so what? You can always load up Windows 7.
(Credit: Dell)Zowie! For less than the price of some Netbooks, you can get yourself a full-blown Dell notebook. Here's the deal: Dell is offering the Inspiron 15n for just $299. That's undeniably amazing, though there are a few caveats.
First, these are new units, not refurbs, and you don't have to deal with any rebates. Ahhh...gotcha! Those aren't caveats at all. Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
The real consideration for most buyers is that the Inspiron 15n runs on Ubuntu Linux 8.10--a great operating system by all accounts, but no good if you need to run Windows apps. (I know, I know, there's always WINE, but I don't consider that a viable solution for everyday users. Yell at me in the comments if you disagree.)
Of course, you could always replace Ubuntu with, say, the Windows 7 Release Candidate, which is available free of charge and will run until March of next year.
If you think you'll go that route, I highly recommend spending an extra $35 to upgrade the Inspiron's Celeron processor to a 2GHz Pentium Dual Core T4200. The Celeron's fine for Linux, but a weakling for Windows. (Actually, it might be OK for 7, which manages nicely even on low-powered Atom processors.)
Everything else about the Inspiron is rock solid, including its 2GB of RAM, 160GB hard drive, DVD burner, and 15.6-inch wide-screen LCD. You also get a four-cell battery and one-year warranty.
I wish I could say that you'll get out the door for $299, but Dell charges $29 for shipping, and you may have to pay sales tax as well. Even so, this is a fantastic bargain for anyone seeking a full-fledged notebook at a Netbook price.
Rick Broida, a technology writer for nearly 20 years, is the author of more than a dozen books. In addition to writing CNET's The Cheapskate blog, he oversees BNET's Business Hacks. Rick is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CBS Interactive. Disclosure. Deals found on The Cheapskate are subject to availability, expiration, and other terms determined by sellers. Follow Rick on Twitter at cheapskateblog. 
I've been playing with Ubuntu via a Wubi install and have been considering having a dedicated linux box. Especially for the times I don't need a windows box.
I'm going to look into this "Xen" mentioned by the first poster. If it works with a few key windows apps I feel inclined to use I am pulling the trigger.
Thanks
www.alternativeto.net has been giving me... ummm.. . Alternatives to some of the programs/tools I use.
Thanks,
NyC
Seriously, a decent Linux alternative to Memories On TV would make me happy. If any of you know of one please share. It is an app that allows me to make DVD videos from photos and video sources and add many effects, text manipulations and other cool stuff.
There is a free open source equivalent for pretty much any major Windows app.
Paint.NET, which I love like no other doesn't work on WINE (in my experience).
iTunes for accessing the store doesn't work (in my experience).
You can't have open source alternatives to pieces of art (read: games), although it's not often you'd be able to run many games on this system in Windows either. 2D games or visual novels work fine in WINE anyway (in my experience).
It would take a bit of learning and research to get a linux box working satisfactorily for the majority of users. However, in this day and age I think most people should have the technical skills required to google an answer and fix stuff on an OS. Then again, I'm probably dreaming.
Ubuntu OS is not as lean as many people think. I TRIED to use Ubuntu 4 (years ago) I could not get my wireless to work correctly (no drivers or workarounds), plus it was way slower than win98sp2 (at the time). I tried again with version 8, but my other desktop (I have 3) could not handle it (it was about at min specs).. it crawled so I went back to Win 2000 for that one. Also I had too many audio problems woth the hassle. Ubuntu is the closest Linux has come to a mass market solution, but it STILL needs years of work.
I'm going to look into this "Xen" mentioned by the first poster. If it works with a few key windows apps I feel inclined to use I am pulling the trigger
me: Your windows apps will absolutely work with xen at 100%. For it is a paravirtualized kernel module that allows you to run a full Windows desktop without rebooting your netbook, in this case the Dell netbook mentioned here. You have a Windows desktop in a window or at full screen(just be pressing a combination key) on top of your Ubuntu, so you don't have to dual boot. So you can install Windows programs as you would in any windows machines, except for heavy graphic intensive programs like games. But for other business applications, a 100% guarantee that it will work.
There is a good alternative for Xen, the VirtualBox package. You can install it by visiting this link:
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads
To be specifi, if the netbook is 32-bit this is the direct link:
http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/2.2.4/virtualbox-2.2_2.2.4-47978_Ubuntu_intrepid_i386.deb
I will recommend using VirtualBox rather than Xen for the reason that VirtualBox was good enough for Desktop virtualization such as having a netbook. Xen is good for data center at the enterprise level, though it can be used also as a Desktop virtualization. The problem with Xen is you can't install proprietary nvidia/ATI drivers on it, so it is better with VirtualBox. VirtualBox is very easy to use.
Try the latest Ubuntu 9.04 and see.
..OR
Add Vista Home Premium - $99 (Amazon) + Antivirus software $40 / year (or AVG free with no support) + $35 for dual core upgrade to make it useable under Vista, can't join a Windows Domain.
I thought the idea was a cheap, hassle-free, useful computer? I'll stick to Ubuntu, thanks.
But for the most part, I run Linux for everything on all of my computers. 98% of everything I do, Linux does faster and more securely without any hassle about licensing. My Windows machine OS has become so "brittle" that I dread waking it up anymore. (Not to mention the constant threat of viruses.)
So this is a good deal as it is. Dell should be supported by us users for offering Linux computers and this is a good opportunity for folks to dedicate a machine to a non-Windows OS.
Linux may be fine on this system since it comes loaded. No installation nightmare, no hunting for days for drivers. No recompiling obscure source code to hack an experimental driver. All should be well if you stay within the confines of the netbook. Web, photos, documents will run fine. Here is where the problems start. New USB devices: Printers, Scanners, Headsets, this is where the average user will have problems. When they add something that needs a driver that needs custom installtion or worse yet recompilation. THIS is why I say Linux is not ready for the mainstream, the average user cannot do this
Most hardware (around 90%) is supported out-of-the-box on modern Linux distributions like Ubuntu/Kubuntu 9.04 or OpenSuse 11.1. Try the same thing with Vista, Win7, or WinXP...you will be hunting for separate manufacturer's driver disks, surfing for drivers on the 'net, etc. This, by your definition, means that installing Windows is beyond the capacity of average users (and I tend to agree, however most anyone can install and run Linux in half an hour and be up and running with their existing wireless card, sound card, printers, monitor, mouse, keyboard, digital camera, webcam, mp3 player, etc). But thanks for playing devil's (or Ballmer's) advocate.
(Probably wouldn't support XP either)
I've spent 0 days hunting for drivers, and have only had to compile one (not that hard). Most standard hardware works right "fresh out of the box". USB devices in particular. Admittedly, some things are designed with M$ windows in mind, but there's usually a developer hot on the trail as soon as they're released. So Linux support grows rapidly everyday.
I've been a very satisfied user for 2+ years now.
Linux fans are so sensitive... If you've read what I have posted in the past you will realize that
(1) I've set up a mail server on Red Hat Linux
(2) Have tried Ubuntu 4,8,9
What you don't know..
I've worked in the past on SCO Linux and even got Windows 3.11for workgroups to work with NFS (even though it was unstable. Anybody that has attempted this back then would know how freaking difficult that is to do.
Linux is NOT for the mainstream, not yet. You can fight me all you want and call me any name you want. Think about it this way: Can you give your parents a Linux machine?
Drivers are the main problem. For instance : I have a Hauppauge HVR tuner. Can you get me ANY driver for that? NO. Windows detects it and gets the driver for me. How does the average person configure WPA2 on Ubuntu? Have you even tried it? Its *impossible*!. You mention sound cards.. I have a 7.1 audio card, how the heck do I get the jack sensing to work right... Go ahead and call me stupid, that will just prove MY case. Linux is NOT ready for the general market.
PS. The Wall Street Journal did an article on how Linux netbooks are being returned once people can't get their peripherals to work on it (mostly printers). Mu all means try it, if it doesn't work then you can always put Win 7 on till middle of next year.
It will run windows 2000 as fast as anything with just 128 MB RAM. I wanted to load Linux on it to give it for someone to use as a browser only system. I did the low memory install and the GUI *CRAWLED* it was so slow I was extremely disappointed. So I got rid of it and tried Xubuntu.. (XFE-flavor of Ubuntu) same thing SUPER SLOW. Don't know why, but this old DELL rocks on 2000. I guess I'll give it with windows...
I have to back you up there. Linux is still not mainstream. They are definitely better with each version, but still has a way to go. One is example is me having to to to command line to to get to some repositories. I was like "***?" Hopefully that's just my ignorance. Otherwise I've had good success with drivers and automatically recognizing peripherals so far (knock on wood).
What would probably be great is if Ubuntu (Linux in general?) had an initial walk-through like new windows computers are known to have. It could be a life saver for someone who buys a box with no Linux familiarity.
Cheers
It's funny you should mention that. My parents do run a linux machine, as well as my "not so computer literate" sister. (Mandriva 2009.1 spring.) I will admit, they didn't install or configure it, but they wouldnt have been able to install and configure windows either. They're more of the 'plug and play' type users, and they like Mandriva. (Especially, the no viruses part.) They we're amazed to see the sheer volume of useful software pre-installed and available. (Not shareware, bloatware, spyware, 'free-for-now'ware, or boot-legged copies of commercial products.)
Also, I don't know what tone of voice you may imply when you read one of my posts, but please don't think I was trying to be antagonizing, or condecending with my earlier post. Please don't think that by disagreeing with you that I'm trying to attack you, or your position. I just disagree. (I will give you some props for the SCO Unix/ Windows 3.11 from back in the day. I'm not sure I'd have the patience for that one.)
In my earlier post, when mentioning XP, I was pointing out that you wouldn't install XP on something with less than 256MB of ram and have very high expectations. You'll wan't at least 256MB of ram to install Ubuntu. (My personal minimum is 512 for a nice responsive system.) Even Xubuntu, which can run on 128MB won't exactly have a spring in it's step if that's all it's got. If you want a system with that low of specs to perform well, you'll probably find puppylinux, zenwalk, or DSL( D--- Small Linux) will be better choices.
Just curious, how well did the Windows 2000 machine run after the anti-virus software was installed, and how difficult was it to get drivers for newer products considering M$ no longer supports that OS, and many/most peripheral manufacturers don't support it either? (I'm not being snyde, seriously.)
Try running linux on that. I've tried. It doesn't work.
Guess what. The machine is still pretty useless. There comes a point where one should consider upgrading his hardware. Boasting performance on even a Windows 2000 machine with 128 MB of ram seems somewhat irrelevant, I'm sorry. Do you just use Office 2000 and watch 240x320 avi files? You can load mp3s on that thing so maybe it's your music box attached to your stereo (NOT a bad use for it at all mind you). However using it as an argument against linux doesn't make sense. The majority of people currently use hardware that can run at least some flavor of linux beautifully.
To be fair, I dual boot that pentium I machine into Win95 to play mp3s with a DOS mp3 player. I could just STRAIGHT UP use 3.1/DOS if I wanted. There are plenty of software solutions for low low low end systems. Just don't use them as an argument against a modern OS... Please.
But Windows fanboys are quick to jump on any deficiency in Linux in their claim that it should be dismissed as not ready for primetime.
I acknowledge that @jasper has had some experience with Ubuntu. But he's not even calling the versions by their right name. His post is the first that I've seen that refers to them as Ubuntu 4, 7, 8, etc. I suspect that he evaluated them just enough to mount a case against using them.
Most Linux users use both operating systems and understand the benefits and pitfalls of each. They gravitate to Linux because it works better than Windows. I know I do, so does our company, and so does my wife.
I setup my mom with a Linux laptop and everyone who visits my house uses our Linux machine as a guest. Our babysitter even uses it when she babysits after the kid goes to sleep. Other than asking for the password, there have been surprisingly few technical questions. People get Linux now. It works.
Perhaps @jasper needs to buy one of these Dell laptops just to understand what he's missing.
I said since its preconfigured on this system your risk is limited to peripheral driver issues. I said TRY IT, you always have an *out* with win7. I'm a cheapskate, if I can get Linux for free why pay for Windows. I didn't *evaluate* Linux to *make a case against it*. I honestly tried it and it was not for me, why?
1) Lack of drivers was the MAIN killer for me. I've said this over and over (Hauppauge HVR was the last straw for me, plus I had to use a NDIS wrapper for my wireless *sigh*). This is not a problem with Linux, but many HW manufacturers WILL NOT release open source drivers. They don't understand how to protect their IP. This should not be a serious issue on this system by itself, but there may be limited risk with peripherals. AGAIN, I said try it.
2) It was SLOW. *Gasp* dare I say Linux runs slower than windows. Yes, I don't know why and I don't have the time or the will to find out. After too many late nights I gave up. With a preconfigured system like the performance is hopefully tweaked.
3) Security. YES, I said it. I had to install other packages and use extensive editing of text files to get WPA to work. It took several evenings using WPA_Supplicant. This is way beyond the average user. Did they ever provide a GUI Interface for this?
4) *Experimental* NTFS writing. Are you kidding me? You have so little faith that users have to jump through hoops to enable NTFS writing from Linux.
BTW. I'm NOT going to call it Breezy Badger, Hoary Hedgehog or Warty Warthog. I'm not a dork. Also I meant to type SCO Unix in an earlier post.
A reasoned response but still fairly unrelated to this particular article, specifically since you brought in your experience with an old computer and not the one featured in this article. Your single anecdotal evidence has a tinge of FUD to it, especially since there was no scientific method applied to it, something you admit to. There is TONS of anecdotal evidence to the contrary scattered all over the Web, so it's a little difficult to give much credence to your posts in that respect, probably one reason why you feel like us Linux "fans" are being so sensitive.
However, I do give you kudos for the rest of the logic such as working with peripherals. In the context of this article, wireless is not an issue since that should be worked out in such a pre-installed environment. That leaves stuff such as printers, external web cams, scanners, etc. As you say, HW manufacturers are not participating in GNU/Linux support, a sad state of affairs since many of them could have drivers written *for free* by the Linux Drivers group (might have their name wrong, sorry). In all fairness, it is up to the manufacturer to provide a driver, but many have either waited or flat-out refused to release drivers.
Ah, but in those cases where the user has the supported hardware, good heavens, Linux rocks! I have a mostly-Linux network at home with a smattering of OS X and XP (thanks to the wife!); my HP Laserjet printer works wonderfully and is shared with all computers over an older Fedora server, my Ubuntu workstation's nVidia card renders World of Warcraft and Cinelerra beautifully, and my laptop (Alienware) with Linux Mint uses the wireless card out of the box without fiddling with ndiswrapper and the ATI driver was activated with little fuss.
When the peripheral set is purchased with Linux in mind, something that is getting tremendously easier day by day, there is very little the user has to mess with in order to be productive. I have more issues keeping the wife's XP laptop malware-free than anything else.
I will soon be purchasing the 15n for a relative that needs a computer for collage. it will be my 13th time setting up an Ubuntu box in the year or so. i expect no problems, well I may upgrade the possessor.
under my past experience install takes 20-60 minuets with most computers. after install I only have to install 1-2 drivers. ( the os will do this for you with an easy to use app in most cases.) currently its getting java, and flash are the only things that have given me problems. I blame this on java and flash. then again you have to install them in windows too so......
compared to vista I prefer Ubuntu. my syetems just run faster. trust me i have the hard ware to run vista and them some.(4 gb ram, 2.6 Ghz core2duo centrino, 8600 gt with 512 ram) i generaly used 34 percent of my ram just setting there with windows. under Ubuntu i use much less and can do more. sure I don't have good 3d games but isn't that what my xbox 360 is for. as for 3rd party programs windows does have us beat in the proprietary market. this is mainly because Microsoft actually pays company not to develop for other systems.
for you windows fan boys who think that we are being critical maybe we are but so are you, it is the our nature as fan boys. i used to use both windows and ubuntu on my xps then I droped windows after it got hit by the configur worm. never looked back. although i do miss aero. if I want that type of look again I will just use kde instead of gnome. also i agree right now wine sucks for most programs.
and to all you people who don't want to give up windows just yet try wubi and be amazed
- by mswal2846 June 18, 2009 1:55 PM PDT
- I've been "solely" on Linux for about 3 years now. I use the quotes because I've not been able to migrate off of MS Office. I am in consulting and there are just too many people/businesses out there using Office. OpenOffice is getting close, but just isn't there yet ... not for real customer sales presentations, etc where everything needs to be clear and crisp. So what do I do? I use a product called CrossOver from the Code Weaver folks to run MS Office and it runs really well under Ubuntu (and Fedora ... I've run both). There product is quite cheap and runs many windows applications quite well. I'm currently running ubuntu 9.04 (truly a wonderful OS).
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (44 Comments)And to answer the question, would I give Ubuntu to my family? Well, yes, I have. They really only need an OS for internet access and MS Office applications. Ubuntu's look and feel is very intuitive. So to those that say Linux isn't ready yet, I think it is.