Everex's $199 green PC: attention ignorant Wal-Mart shoppers

Make no mistake, Everex can build 'em some kind of ugly. Still, they have learned to spin their gear as green, not underpowered, which counts for something. The TC2502 gPC (that's "g" as in "green," not crap) is out cluttering Wal-Mart shelves with a low, low $199 price tag. Inside, you'll find a 1.5GHz VIA C7 CPU sitting daintily on a Mini-ITX motherboard. A Linux OS, 512MB of memory and an 80GB of disk are tossed in just for kicks. So why that huge-ass case? That's the best part. Research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers equate the size of the system to its capability. As such, Everex swaddled all that nothingness in a 2-foot by 2-foot monument to plastic. Now go ahead, Greenpeace, we beg you, rip it apart and let us know just how much non-recyclable polymer and dangerous PVC and BFR this pup really contains.

[Via Gadget Lab, thanks Rob G.]

[Jon @ Oct 31st 2007 10:23AM]

Wow the hate in that article is terrible. Not everyone needs a $2000 designer white box you know.

[wasabi @ Oct 31st 2007 10:24AM]

i do!

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 31st 2007 10:29AM]

Indeed.

Perhaps if some examples of better values or specs for the money were given it would some bite behind that bark.

As-is for a base starter system it doesn't seem too too bad if you can provide your own peripherals.
Heck, the thing'll probably handle XP if you aren't in a hurry or need to multi-task.

(In this case opening the volume control while surfing might count as multitasking.)

[Jon @ Oct 31st 2007 10:41AM]

According to benchmarks, the VIA C7 actually has better performance per watt than a Pentium-M ULV so I am sure multi-tasking Win XP (which was released when 512MB RAM was considered high end) on it should not be a problem.

[John @ Oct 31st 2007 10:42AM]

While I agree, I think their point is that the case is purely designed to be big, nothing else. It's not even function over form - it's size over function over form. Because apparently your average shopper sees that and thinks "I'm gettin a whole heap o' computer!"

[yoshi @ Oct 31st 2007 10:45AM]

I would say that most of the "hate" in the article is centered around the contradiction of it being advertised as a "green pc" on the one hand and including not-so-green giant-ass case just for marketing purposes.

Hypocrites deserve an extra measure of "hate" and ridicule at all times.

[FatSweatSuitWearer @ Oct 31st 2007 10:53AM]

Wal Mart deserves every bit of hate that can be hurled at it. They have learned just how profitable general ignorance is, and have capitalized on it at all our expenses.

[MB @ Oct 31st 2007 10:54AM]

Hmmmm... so your message is that...

A caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) isn't necessary for lower-end Wal-Mart shoppers?

Lower-end buyers don't care about sham?

[MEAT! @ Oct 31st 2007 10:55AM]

@yoshi (and others)

Perhaps the PC's "green" label refers not to the amount of plastic in the case, but the low energy requirements of the mini-itx motherboard. Which has the greater savings: The amount of energy saved via reducing the normal-sized case to a shoebox, or the amount of energy saved over, say, five years of using a very minimal computer as opposed to a power hog?

[Jon @ Oct 31st 2007 11:08AM]

While I agree that the box is indeed a bit large, I think the centre piece to why Everex calls this the 'green PC' is due to the C7-D processor which consumes 20W. Combined with energy efficient mini-ITX case you have something, while ugly, uses less energy than a typical AMD or Intel PC.

[bobartig @ Oct 31st 2007 12:58PM]

@Jon, so the proc itself consumes 20W, and that's considered green? My MacMini (entire system) idles at 23W, but is otherwise a no-compromise system. It's pretty efficient, but does that quality as green, too?

Why does everex put 300W power supplies in their energy efficient PCs? Seems odd to me.

At any rate, might be good for modders looking to score some mini itx hardware for cheap. Stick it in a pumpkin, make a bookPC, add a media center to your car, etc.

[TVGenius @ Oct 31st 2007 1:36PM]

Correct. That's why I got the $299 Woot special that runs Vista and actually has a DVD-DL drive with LightScribe. I don't need something with blue LEDs just for show. Only thing it was lacking for me was a serial port for my GPS.

[Dobbs @ Oct 31st 2007 3:40PM]

"not everyone needs a $2000 white box" - true, but if they made the size of the case 2 or 3 times larger than it needs to be, then labeled the PC as 'green' then they ought to be shot for it.

[Legodude522 @ Oct 31st 2007 8:25PM]

@bobartig a 300w PSU in no way means it uses all 300 watts. Probably will never even use that much.

[Jude @ Nov 6th 2007 12:11PM]

Haha.... Well, i do need a 2000 $ piece of the designers pie... one that moves at around 5.6 ghz. If you would prefer to give away and White Boxes that just land on your lap, then my arms are open. Any one duped into buying this piece of Everex shitcicle is being seriously ripped off. This computer is from like 1980... when everything was green, and people didn't live like self inflated narcissists. (I'm not saying that i don't fit that label.)

[Rususeruru @ Oct 31st 2007 10:26AM]

These will sell like hotcakes. Until people turn them on and discover that not all machines run Windows. Returns for [almost] EVERYONE!

[Blackstar @ Oct 31st 2007 11:18AM]

Yes, but will these be able to RUN hotcakes? Is there a compatible hotcakes driver for their Linux distro? Will you need to update your hotcakes.dll files?

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 31st 2007 1:08PM]

It won't do "Hotcakes II: The search for more Hotcakes".

I looked.

[Matt W. @ Oct 31st 2007 1:48PM]

So if this is likely a return for most Wal-Mart shoppers, anyone know Wal-Mart's open box policy? Imagine snagging one for $150 for some Linux fun. I've been thinking of dual-booting Ubuntu, but since we currently have one PC, I've held off because I need to keep it wife friendly. Instead, I could put a KVM on the desk, and the gPC under it rather than dual booting.

[patsy @ Oct 31st 2007 2:16PM]

I just checked with newegg, and you can build system with similar specs (except only an 800MHz C3) for $140, or just $125 after a $15 rebate. The barebones box that makes the low price possible is this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856110056.

[smilespray @ Oct 31st 2007 10:32AM]

You just have to love and/or hate Wal-Mart's specs page:

Assembled in Country of Origin: USA and/or Imported
Origin of Components: USA and/or Imported

[Monty22001 @ Oct 31st 2007 10:33AM]

I really can't wait until this green fad is over with. In 15 years people will look back on this and shake their heads.

[headshaker @ Oct 31st 2007 10:45AM]

In 15 seconds people will look at your post & shake their heads.

Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh...

[Thanol @ Oct 31st 2007 10:46AM]

... as they sit in their beach houses which are now 15 feet underwater.

[Monty22001 @ Oct 31st 2007 10:55AM]

You two are ridiculously brainwashed by leftist idealogy. I don't listen to Rush, btw. What an idiotic argument to use. If sea levels rise 15 feet in 15 years, I'll eat my hat though.

[Luigi193 @ Oct 31st 2007 11:08AM]

Whats wrong with Rush?

[Jon @ Oct 31st 2007 11:12AM]

Whether climate change is real or not and whether it will have a profound affect on us humanity (like sea rise) it does not matter. I still rather live in a less polluted town than it is now.

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2007 11:21AM]

Not even the IPCC thinks the sea will rise 15 feet in 15 years. They claim half a foot to two feet over the century... and their estimate has gone down over time. Expect future estimates to be even lower.

Monty, no need to worry about eating your hat.

[allaina @ Oct 31st 2007 11:35AM]

@chris:

but what if he wants to eat his hat? it might be banana flavoured.

[fistpittingnork @ Oct 31st 2007 11:35AM]

You should instead sell that hat and use the money to buy some floaties.

Seriously though, my beliefs may or may not parallel yours, that's here nor there, but out of curiosity, what is/are your reason(s) we will look back in disappointment?

[Dave @ Oct 31st 2007 11:43AM]

Monty22001, you seem to think the current levels of emissions are not a problem, so please tell me at what point does it become a problem?
Double? 10 times? 1000 times?
If you are unable to answer that then how do you know the current levels are not an issue?

[mattclarkie @ Oct 31st 2007 11:59AM]

Why is it that when anyone points out that the evidence "proving" climate change is actually weak and disproved by a majority of the scientific community they are called ignorant and/or biased.

Key members of the EU scientific board actually changed results/made up evidence "proving" climate change to increase their funding. Many actually admitted this on camera/on record. And of course much of the fluff spouted by Al Gore is based on the European research.

So by default it is rubbish made up to make money. I am not saying the earth isn't heating, although I haven't noticed it, but if you look back the temperature of the earth has always fluctuated and the dramatic changes that are described would take radical shifts in climate that just are feasible without a major event such as 23 simultaneous eathquakes.

I now expect the hippies to rank me down. I will see this a proving my point.

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2007 12:02PM]

@Dave,

Your premise that CO2 causes temperatures to rise is faulty. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's big impressive chart was misleading. Fact is that the CO2 levels followed temperatures on that chart by 800-1000 years. In other words, the temperature change preceded the change in CO2, not the other way around.

Don't believe me? Not surprised. Recently, the British High Court ruled that the movie could not be aired in schools because of several inaccuracies and was therefore tantamount to one-sided political indoctrination. Just do a google search on "british high court inconvenient truth." The famous 650,000 year CO2 to Temp chart was one of the claims found to be false.

[Joe Shmoe @ Oct 31st 2007 12:30PM]

How about you present evidence for your outrageous claim. IPCC evidence *fabricated* and admitted to *on camera*. That is simply not the case. The IPCC is a collection of research done by other organizations, it's claims and positions are by far the most conservative in all of the scientific community. There is no question within the community that global warming is occurring, that it's a result (at least in part) of human actions and that it's a serious threat to mankind. Of all peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last seven years *not a single* paper has contradicted anthropomorphic global warming or the IPCC conclusion.

Anyone, such as you, who suggests different must provide actual evidence to support that claim. Now scurry off and prove your spurious accusations. I'll wait.

[Dave @ Oct 31st 2007 12:42PM]

OK Chris, so we can just keep on pumping a variety of gasses into the atmosphere with no repercussions at all can we? Is that what you are saying?
Or is there a limit? Obviously there must be a limit, do you know what it is? If not it makes no sense at all to increase the levels of any atmospheric pollutants.
Ever heard of the precautionary principle? That suggests that until you know exactly what is safe it is sensible to minimise the impact onto the environment.

Anyway it’s not MY premise,
FACT: global mean temperatures are rising faster than ever before.
FACT: we are pumping all sorts of chemicals into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels.
Now there is no direct provable link between these but common sense and pretty much every model and the work of almost every independent climate scientist seem to indicate a link.

But YOU know better.

[Dauthi @ Oct 31st 2007 1:05PM]

Fun reading material.
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+CO2+Not+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article9313.htm

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2007 1:29PM]

Yes, I do know better, and I do know the precautionary principle. Here is how I apply it. Until there is a clear proven danger, we should not bankrupt the United States (or any other nation) to try and comply with the unattainable Kyoto requirements when even the looniest of the global warming crowd concede that it could only offset warming by a few tenths of a degree. The amount of spending required to make a measurable difference on warming, if you can get past the fallacious claim that CO2 emissions cause warming, would literally leave millions of hardworking Americans hungry or worse. The opportunity cost of money spent on emissions compliance would be money not spent in medicine and other critical areas.

Had the precautionary principle been properly applied to, say, DDT before it was banned, nearly 60,000,000 would not have needlessly died. A genocide worse than that of the Nazis. And for what? Answer, unproven dangers, just like global warming.

"FACT: global mean temperatures are rising faster than ever before."
WRONG - Studies have been released which indicate that there has been NO warming since 1999. Help yourself to a google search "Global warming stopped 1999"

You can relax though. If you do believe in the link between CO2 and warming, don't worry. We (the world) have been decarbonizing for the last 150 years. Moving from burning wood, to coal, to oil, to natural gas has reduced the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of energy at each step. Eventually we will move to a carbon free method of energy production (hydrogen is already in the works), and we will do it all on our own, without the help of Sierra Club. While I appreciate their efforts, unfortunately, they are about 100 years too late.

I hope you don't misinterpret me. I am very anti-pollution. Clean air and water is very important, and I do believe that anything we do to reduce our energy usage is good for a variety of reasons. But I absolutely do not buy into global warming. The climate models are dreadfully weak and make unreasonable assumptions. We can't even predict our own capital markets. You think we can reasonably predict something potentially a million times more complex? The weather man is wrong over half the time, and that is a weather prediction just days in advance. Anyone who claims that the "science is settled" and that we can predict global warming is either a fool (on this matter) or a charlatan.

[edwardtma @ Oct 31st 2007 10:04PM]

"Yes, I do know better, and I do know the precautionary principle. Here is how I apply it. Until there is a clear proven danger, we should not bankrupt the United States.."

I wish we can say the same regarding Iraq and Iran.

[Skullfighter @ Oct 31st 2007 1:49PM]

Who cares about the green fad. It promotes our stupid car companies to create something more than 20 mpg. Anything that creates better technology than the stuff we've been using for 100 years is good by my standard.

First post FTW! **looks around sheepishly noticing it's the 200th post** /sarcasm

[Joe Shmoe @ Oct 31st 2007 2:23PM]

@Chris

You are referencing a highly controversial claim made by a pair of scientists that have not published, nor have they submitted their data to peer-review. You cannot argue against a long-standing consensus with unconfirmed and frankly just plain *shady* data from a pair of fringe ideologues.

BTW, the cosmic role in cloud cover formation is highly speculative *and* the IPCC reports show no measurable change in cloud cover in the past seven years. That cosmic rays have affected the Earth's albedo is the real fallacious claim.

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2007 2:49PM]

@Joe - I think the another poster referenced that.

I was referencing the data of a university research institute referenced in this piece in The Telegraph... and others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

That being said, the leaps of faith, i.e. guesses, in the global warming models are no greater than the leaps in that article posted by the other poster.

[Grayson @ Oct 31st 2007 3:28PM]

@ Chris

Um...just curious, Chris, but what exactly are your qualifications on this subject?

Civil Engineering Graduate Student here @ the University of Texas, specializing in Environmental Engineering. Let's just say I work, study, and research with a whole lot of people who have spent their entire life looking at subjects such as global warming, and the effects it has and will cause. The professors/researchers/doctors would much rather look at a slew of numbers - factually verifiable research - than get their cues from any politician. And guess what? By the standards set in place for scientific research (you know, the stuff that is the foundations of everything we do/see/feel/know, like GRAVITY, or ATOMS, or ANYTHING) global warming is as fact as fact can get (99.99% certainty).

Oh, and yes, scientist with credibility (i.e. hundreds of peer reviewed published studies, thousands of references by other studies to those papers, etc) know global warming is taking place. And, no, I highly doubt the overwhelming majority (read: all) of true scientists are fools.

Is it caused by humans? The evidence points in that direction, but to what extent is still debatable. Just like the evidence points to an evolution of species and the evidence points to the cancer causing trends of smoking. Science is based on evidence, and those that deny global warming are ignoring the evidence or consuming bad science. It is, unfortunately, a common thing.

I find it disheartening that a large amount of posts here say something to the effect of "do a Google search on xyz", since, everything on the internet is correct, right? I mean, anyone who slept their way through a Pheonix Online Univeristy degree and registered a .org domain must be credible, right? Show me the (real) university research that *denies* global warming. Show me the real peer reviewed, published work that denies global warming. There is none. The only thing out there that denies global warming are politicians, shabby "scientists" using shabby "science", and you, Chris.

I highly recommend anyone really interested in global warming to pick up a *credible* science journal or the IPCC report or seek out a respected institute of research and higher education, and please PLEASE stop believing everything you read from anybody with PhD behind their name. The debate on global warming is as ridiculous as a debate about evolution or if smoking causes cancer. The debate SHOULD be about how we can improve our world, not how we can continue our destructive behavior.

Science has spoken, and the debate is merely a war of egos and interest groups in the political realm.

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2007 5:35PM]

"Um...just curious, Chris, but what exactly are your qualifications on this subject?"

I can read, and I am a poster on this blog. Those are my qualifications. I am also a CPA, so I am no dummy. But really, I would expect someone as smart as an Environmental Engineer to be able to judge my points on their face, not on my qualifications. I am not an expert on abortion, terrorism, et al, but I have opinions about those subjects, as I assume you do too, and I am as reasonably informed about global warming as anyone could be expected to be.

First of all, I do not deny that global warming exists, I question the conclusiveness of the science that indicates humans are to blame. Also, your claim that the science is settled, and that everyone who dissents is some loony tune simply stifles debate. Fact is that my side of the debate has spent only a fraction of what your side of the debate has spent, and yet, your side has made rather little policy headway. I wonder why that is... hmmm... maybe it is because the policy makers are not convinced of the science.

To claim the debate is over does a major disservice to the marketplace of ideas. My guess is that you are so cooped up on whatever project you are working on that you miss a lot of the news. I am not saying that there are tons of studies which deny global warming, but a lot of studies have nuggets in there that puncture holes in the theory. Taken together, there is quite a body of evidence which casts doubt on the theory.

At a higher, philosophical level, I find it hard to believe that humans could ever fully understand the environment as it is such a complex system. There are millions of factors which weigh into global weather patterns and local weather patterns. The problem is, nobody really knows how much of any local effect is caused by global trends vs local trends. We don't know how much warming can be attributable to nature, and we don't know how much we can attribute to the fact that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. We don't understand how much the Urban Heat Effect factors into our temperature measurements. How much does el nino and la nina factor into various measurements. How do all the other various cycles fit in? We can't even understand our own capital markets, and trust me, VASTLY larger amounts of money are spent trying to understand the secrets of the stock market. Additionally, it is a far simpler complex system than... uhhh... the World!

"The science is settled"... that is hubris.

I recommend everyone watch the video on Michael Crichton's website. FYI - He was an MD and he IS a brilliant researcher.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-complexity.html

[liin @ Nov 1st 2007 2:03AM]

@Chris

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I read your Michael Crichton article. My advice, take logic 101.

What has past fear-that-didn't-come-true had to do with current scientific data? What has our failure to predict population growth to do with current climate data? Are you going to judge Google's management performance with pre dot com bubble stocks?

So we used to think the Earth was flat, and the Sun revolves around us. We were wrong, why are we still trying to understand the Universe, why don't we just give up reforestation and preservation, and say, just accept it, land dies, resources gets used up, just the way it is. And say too, it's not that simple to cure people from sickness, as the current model for viruses is too simple, it would take centuries for us to understand the complexity of it. Just give up curing people for now. Accept that we are incompetent. Geez. That isn't even a valid argument. It's just an attitude.

So the lobster's stomach has a more complex nervous system than the diagram used to explain global warming to the public. Maybe we should go back to pre space-time model and stick with the 3 dimensional world where you would need a very complex model for time.

Plus, all he does is saying, look, as science advances, we are able to re-examine our previous models. So we didn't understand human heart perfectly, so what, we were still able to save thousands of lives using that old simplistic model.

In short, what has the unrelated A got to do with B, even if A is true?

If, he, like Feynman did for QED, or Einstein did for the space-time, where if you factored in the unaccounted for, the numbers gathered by scientists which didn't fit well with the old model would then be that as predicted by the new model. What he needs to do is, use his complexity model, and show that, with that factored in, natural environmental changes would have numbers match more precisely to the collective scientific data than the human-induced model. But no, all he did was, well, maybe there's something that everyone didn't considered. That's it?

I'm going to make this argument, that everyone forgot that this world could just be a simulation run by aliens, where a designated group were designed to think they have some control over the environment. It's an add-on package to the aliens' MMORG for business profits. In this case, we will never understand the aliens' codes for our environment. How different is this "argument"?

[liin @ Nov 1st 2007 3:32AM]

@Chris

"The amount of spending required to make a measurable difference on warming, if you can get past the fallacious claim that CO2 emissions cause warming, would literally leave millions of hardworking Americans hungry or worse."

Where's your supporting data? According to IPCC, which was just awarded for Nobel for their scientific effort, estimated the amount of setback in economic GROWTH would be 0.12% per year through 2030, which, I believe, would amounts to about half a year in 2030 on norminal GDP. I could easily live with 2030 Christmas with only 2030 summer's economic status.

[xlandaux @ Oct 31st 2007 10:36AM]

How is this "Green" when they waste space & materials on an excessively big case!?
They could have put this in a really small case with a efficient/small PSU and actually made it somewhat more green, but yeah i think the Linux will have consumers rushing back to the store...

[Satish @ Oct 31st 2007 11:33AM]

....Research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers equate the size of the system to its capability. As such, Everex swaddled all that nothingness in a 2-foot by 2-foot monument to plastic.........

Read the story again..

[xlandaux @ Oct 31st 2007 11:41AM]

gee thanks mom, i think you missed my point.

[Sam @ Oct 31st 2007 6:00PM]

no, i think you missed the point. the article made the same damn point, you would have realized that if you intellect and wit were up to par...but its always nice reading the same thing again when someone attempts to make a point by just repeating something. Have you thought about politics?

[4honor @ Oct 31st 2007 10:36AM]

It does come with keyboard and mouse right? Maybe speakers too? Or am I asking for too much?