|
Description
I want to buy a new PC. I want to use Ubuntu on it. There's a lot of pre-assembled hardware out there which is done sometimes by people who don't know what they're doing. I for one am able to make a configuration for a PC that will work great as far as performance, but i can only get the performance with Vista, i'd have to do a lot of research which i have, and came up with zilch ... to match hardware components to get optimized performance with Ubuntu. I'm sick of Windows and i want to just use Ubuntu, i want to get a new PC, so PLEASE provide (not just for me) some choices regarding a few configurations with which Ubuntu will work without problems, and get better performance.
Make a list of cfg sorting by performance&budget. Keyboards, mice, desk-sets, video cards, motherboards, processors, whatever... and post it on the website maybe with every new release of Ubuntu.
Ubuntu Interpid Ibex.... works with the following recommended(tested) hw configurations: bla bla bla.
It's clear that Ubuntu can't support all types of hardware and it has to stick with something in order to make things happen for everyone.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
adrian2 wrote on the 24 May 08 at 18:02
|
Not really, actually what i'm looking for is provided PC configurations bu the guys at Canonical, tested systems, with certified hardware so we can buy new pc's that work with ubuntu, none of that stuff like... oh, i have a problem with my keyboard or mouse or motherboard or other...
Buy certified hardware people, and get all the bugs out!
|
|
andruk wrote on the 25 May 08 at 19:06
|
Ah, I see your point. If I understand you correctly, you just want a list of properly working systems that you can check against when your buying a preconfigured computer. This would simply require another list in the HardwareSupport section of the Wiki.
The only problems I foresee are going to be:
1) Getting Canonical to do this would take a large effort on their part. If Canonical decides to do all of the testing themselves, the list will grow too slow to be useful, as the newest computers may rarely be added before they aren't offered by the OEMs anymore. The other solution is to allow community participation, but that leads to point 2.
2) Slight variations on the same models will pose a problem, as one system may include a wireless chipset from Intel, but the next revision may include a chipset from Broadcomm (which doesn't have good drivers). This will mean that the list will need multiple entries per model, diluting the list and making it more difficult for end users to pick a model with completely compatible hardware (ie - no Broadcomm). Because it will be difficult to tell which system the end user is getting (Intel or Broadcomm), they may very well pick the "wrong" system, and come away with a bad Linux experience altogether (apparent confusing/wrong compatibility lists, hardware not supported (well), change in UI, etc).
I like your idea of having a list of preconfigured systems though, and I'm sure there's another solution to these problems out there. I do think, however, that OEMs need to see the benefit of providing Linux-compatible hardware (putting pressure on not-completely-compatible hardware vendors), but this is difficult to do directly.
+1, as the overall benefits of any type of list outweigh the costs (in my opinion)
|
|
adrian2 wrote on the 28 May 08 at 07:36
|
Thanks for the vote!
... to put it simply, if the chipset from broadcomm doesn't have good drivers don't use it!
Compatibility lists are long i agree, but if you want to optimize performance we all know there's just a few choices. Looking at just the hardware part, there's a lot of processors that work on a motherboard, but only a few are the right ones to use. What computer stores usually do is they configure a system that has a top of the line processor and the rest is poor quality. Nobody cares if the specs say "2Gb of ram" people say WOW... it doesn't matter that it's dual channel or not, or if the latency class is 5 or 4.
Hard disk is 250GB.... great! It's not easy for some producer that makes everything from cars to mp3 players to toasters and hair dryers to take some platters and make some circuitry.... all that "working" with a 250W power supply.
How ever there are such things as performance per buck, and others such as average failure rate, transfer rate and other parameters not taken into consideration buy the average user.
It's safe to say that these days i can stick a processor into a a motherboard that has the right socket and it will work, but it's not that simple... there's no point in using more than i need or less than i can get! Like a fsb of 5xx on the processor and 4xx on the motherboard or the other way arround. Or HT for "the smarter choice"...and so on and so forth....
Now the thing about systems is i really don't care about hardware manufacturers struggling for every buck, or taking over other companies, i just want a system that works best with ubuntu. There's already a list of drivers and a lot of people willing to share experiences with ubuntu so that we all can benefit.
All i'm saying is every LTS..., suggest something like 3-4 configurations.
About putting pressure... i don't know what pressure can be put on those hardware vendors. We're just another linux... It's like going to the board of directors in some major trust and demanding this and that with only one share.
Pressure will be put but not directly by Canonical, but by the market. If we combine the best hardware that is Ubuntu compatible it's going to translate in sales for HW makers, less for the competition... bla bla bla
I'll shut up now:)
|
Post your comment
|
