Wal-Mart is pulling plug on in-store gPC "experiment"

It's hard to know the real story here -- we'd hate to think of a bunch of Mr. and Mrs. Nice Persons taking home a gPC just to find it can't run that copy of Office or Half-Life 2 they were hoping to install -- but for whatever reason Wal-Mart is dropping its Linux "experiment" from store shelves and going back to selling the systems solely online. Apparently Wal-Mart did manage to sell out its entire stock of gPCs in the 600 stores that got them before pulling the plug, but the $199 computer just "wasn't what our customers were looking for," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien. Everex spokesman Paul Kim says that online gPC sales were "significantly more effective," so apparently there aren't any hard feelings here.

[mushrooshi @ Mar 10th 2008 7:24PM]

I don't see why XP wasn't offered on these.

I am a linux supporter, but XP wouldve been the best choice, since these people would go in, and buy their software. As far as I know, barely anything in Walmart is Mac compatible, and I haven't seen any linux software there either.

Linux is a total hassle for my Mom, who knows not much about computers. SHe prefers XP.

[Chebwa @ Mar 10th 2008 7:37PM]

I am sure that was the primary reason behind this drop. They probably got so many complaints when the less tech savvy customers realized this wasn't the OS they were used to. Throw on an XP license, charge $299, and they'd sell out again and this time with less confusion.

[Dave @ Mar 10th 2008 8:26PM]

by "less tech savy" not knowing it didnt come with windows, you mean old senile people and/or those that live in trailers?

[Shadyman @ Mar 10th 2008 8:27PM]

Chebwa:

Don't forget the cost of adding another stick of RAM to run Windows properly.

[Clinton @ Mar 10th 2008 8:32PM]

No, Dave, I think he means the average computer user who does not know much about Linux. Generally folks go into the store and expect to buy a computer with Windows installed. Unless there is a glaring sign alerting them to the fact that Linux installed, they won't know until they take it home and realize that Microsoft Office won't work.

Linux is still a mystery to many users.

[Chebwa @ Mar 10th 2008 10:45PM]

"...another stick of RAM to run Windows properly."

This PC has 512, correct? XP runs BEAUTIFULLY with 512. 1GB is more of a luxury for XP, whereas it is a necessity with Vista. 256-512 was the standard for most of XP's reign.

[tekdemon @ Mar 11th 2008 2:37AM]

Chebwa, not anymore it doesn't. It used to run well back when the apps available were used to people only having that much RAM. You know, the days before our browsers had tabs, when firefox didn't need 200MB of RAM, and there wasn't such a thing as Youtube.
And back then we ran Office 97 or 2000. Needless to say...RAM requirements have gone up.

[Chebwa @ Mar 11th 2008 3:27AM]

"not anymore it doesn't"

No, it does. I use XP machines with modern software using 512 very often (VERY often). And it sure as hell is enough for the average Walmart computer buyer. It'll run mail.aol.com like a demon.

[DWells55 @ Mar 11th 2008 3:33AM]

I have a PC at home with an Athlon 3000+ and 512MBs of RAM running XP SP3 no problem. Multitasks (Firefox, IMs, music, MS Word, etc) just fine and I'm sure I could get Half Life 2 running on it if I really wanted to. So yeah, XP works fine with 512MBs of RAM.

[Galley @ Mar 11th 2008 9:48AM]

Older people tend not to know what an OS is. They think all computers are the same. My Dad's owned a PC for three years and he still doesn't know what a browser is. He calls it the thing with the big blue "E". I wanted him o buy a MacBook, but he wanted the cheapest piece of crap laptop he could find. Trying to deal with Vista (which I've never used) over the phone is a nightmare.

[Andrew @ Mar 13th 2008 7:49PM]

Alright, beef up that VIA C7-D 1.5GHz, add 512MB RAM. Now XP can run AS FAST as Linux on that machine (you forget Linux is optimized for not only lower end machines, but that machine in particular...), NOW slap on an XP license, plus an Office license.

Do that for your proposed $100.

OR use it as it comes. You need office? Guess what, comes with it. OpenOffice is not MS Office you say? Well, if they can't tell the difference between windows and Linux... Seeing as how OpenOffice can natively open and save those formats... Gee Wiz.

Looks like that $200 machine isnt so bad

[helloUser @ Mar 10th 2008 7:27PM]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, and I don't think I ever will.

[Kamokazi @ Mar 10th 2008 7:37PM]

Good! Shorter checkout lines for me.

[Jason @ Mar 10th 2008 10:56PM]

I had originally intended to open this post with an insult to all you people who rated helloUser low. Instead I'll just add my pence in with him and say you guys can have your short lines, I'll take a clean, clutter-less, local store that doesn't abuse child labor throughout the world in order to save you 4 cents on that sweater you just had to have. Wal-Mart...always a bad neighbor.

[Matt M @ Mar 11th 2008 2:44AM]

I save more than 4 cents, i can save $5-10 on a generic knit shirt, for some of us, that means a lot. I'm sorry we all cant be driving around in hummers, paying $5 a gallon for premium gas, lighting $100 bills on fire. Ok i went too far there, but you get the idea. Saving a few pennies for some is a lot more important than you might ever understand.

[lanemeyer67ss @ Mar 13th 2008 10:40AM]

@ Matt M

more often than not, you get what you pay for. enjoy that lead paint from china.

just remember that someone, somewhere is paying for your "savings". sometimes it's a child in china making the toy, sometimes it's your child getting sick from the toy.

[Liam @ Mar 10th 2008 7:34PM]

Linux will remain rather specialist for the foreseeable future. For a main family PC... which is really the market this is going for when selling in Wal-Mart, no, it's not a fantastic idea. For your dinky EEE or your Android phone, why the hell not. Hopefully these new markets will filter back through, and make Linux better supported, so it can be used as a home PC by the average user without headaches.

[Mike @ Mar 10th 2008 7:38PM]

i dont really understand Linux could someone explain it to me? not like how to use it, but what it is

[bartoron @ Mar 10th 2008 7:45PM]

Well you see... it's kinda like a zebra. It has stripes, often lives in a zoo, and eats plants.

[Kamokazi @ Mar 10th 2008 7:49PM]

It's an operating system, like Windows Vista or Macintosh OS X

Linux, by itself, is just the base for the more robust systems you are familiar with with graphic interfaces (windows, menus, etc). At it's core (called a kernel), it's all text-based, where you enter commands to execute programs or make changes. There are Windows-like interfaces for it, the most popular being Gnome and KDE. But you cannot run Windows or Mac programs on Linux, since it is different (You can through software emulation but that's another story).

The other big thing is, Linux is Open Source, which means its code is available for anyone to see, reuse, and modify, as long as they give credit and in turn keep their source code open as well. So for an end-user like you, this means that there are several Linux 'distributions' avaialible for free download. A distribution is a package of the base Linux kernel, a graphical interface, and several open source applications, like Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice. Perhaps the most famous of these is called Ubuntu, and is available here: http://www.ubuntu.org

The most compelling reasons people use Linux are: A) Openness B) Security C) Flexibility and D) Price (Free!)

That is just the VERY basics though, there is much more to it. I suggest you go to the Ubuntu site and brows around there, and venture to their forums.

[Chebwa @ Mar 10th 2008 7:54PM]

The combined knowledge of everybody reading Engadget still will not equal what you can find on Wikipedia. Look there.

[austin @ Mar 10th 2008 7:55PM]

one correction to your post.

it is ubuntu.com
not ubuntu.org

[Kamokazi @ Mar 10th 2008 7:56PM]

Ack, my mistake, the Ubuntu site is actually http://www.ubuntu.com

[hooeezit @ Mar 10th 2008 8:30PM]

@Kamokazi

Good summary, but I hate to point out that the 'kernel' you talk about isn't what you think it is. The kernel is simply the core of the operating system. You, as a user, never do anything with or in the kernel. The 'text' based 'thingy' you are talking about is called a shell. The simpler shells in Linux are text based. A 'windowing' environment is a 'graphical shell'.

Mind you, this is no different in any of the Microsoft OSs. The 'basic' bootup mode for Windows has been a command prompt since the very first version of Windows. I haven't used Vista, but even upto XP, you need to boot into 'Command Prompt Only' mode if things get really screwed up.

This information is undoubtedly confusing for a newbie, so it's best not to mention anything about the shell, rather than call the 'kernel' the 'shell'.

[nh @ Mar 10th 2008 9:09PM]

Linux is like Windows but free and harder to use.

[Chebwa @ Mar 10th 2008 10:48PM]

@nh

Hahaha! Perfect. =)

[Terc @ Mar 10th 2008 11:49PM]

@nh

I wouldn't ever consider popular versions (distributions) of Linux to be harder than Windows to use.

It's just different.

If your first PC is a Windows machine, you'll learn crazy things like, click on Start to shut down. And running with Administrator privileges all the time is ok (this is insane if you know anything about security).

Personally, I like the fact that in most linux distros, you can open the package manager (just a fancy name for a program that installs programs for you) and search for what you want to do, it automatically returns a list of applications you can use and to install them, you just check the box next to the name and click "Apply"

Now, if you LIKE digging though websites to find a program for a specific need, and you LIKE having to just trust the web host that they're not going to install crap all over your computer when you download and run the installer, then, well, Windows must be great.

So, no, Windows is not easier, it may just be more familiar. Easy and familiar are not synonyms.

[Chebwa @ Mar 10th 2008 11:58PM]

"I wouldn't ever consider popular versions (distributions) of Linux to be harder than Windows to use."

You are fucking insane.

[s1pacrat @ Mar 11th 2008 12:46AM]

The difference between something that won't fail and something that cannot possibly fail is that when something that cannot possibly fail fails, there is usually no way to fix it.

Linux probably won't fail.

Windows cannot possibly fail.

[Mike @ Mar 11th 2008 5:55PM]

you know ill just stick with OS X

[CosterMonger @ Mar 13th 2008 11:18AM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

[johnmc @ Mar 10th 2008 7:56PM]

The way I see it, there are two factors at work here:

1. Most Linux users won't shop at Wal-Mart.
2. Most Wal-Mart shoppers won't use Linux.

[I.E @ Mar 10th 2008 8:12PM]

How exactly did you come up with that "deduction"?

[johnmc @ Mar 10th 2008 8:19PM]

I've interacted with Linux users from all over the world and I went to a Wal-Mart that one time a few years ago, just to see what it was like.

[JayMonster @ Mar 11th 2008 8:59AM]

johnmc:

That is exactly the case, it was true when Wally World tried it with Lindows (Linspire), and it is true now. Many "thought" the problem was (and may have been true to some extent), that the "Lindows" name confused consumer. But the fact is, they person buying this hunk of junk doesn't know enough to read the label and make an informed choice. Those that do know enough, aren't buying this hunk of junk.

@I.E

You can scoff all you want at his "deduction" but tell me this... why is it all the people involved in the decision to put this on the shelves couldn't figure that out? It may be "obvious" but apparently not to some.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 10th 2008 8:05PM]

Typically choices like Linux and OS X and for people who actually took a minute to do some research compared to people who buy a dell w/ windows just because their relatives have dells w/ windows...

[jskrdude @ Mar 10th 2008 9:15PM]

I did some research... then built my own desktop and put XP on that.

Nothing against macs/linux... My next laptop (when my crappy windows laptop finally dies) will probably be a macbook..

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 10th 2008 9:24PM]

Well I have nothing against XP or PCs -- I use them alongside my Macs every single day - I just don't like it when people grab the first thing they see and claim they've made an educated decision.

[Down @ Mar 12th 2008 5:24AM]

"Typically choices like Linux and OS X and for people who actually took a minute to do some research compared to people who buy a dell w/ windows just because their relatives have dells w/ windows..."

There are ALOT of people who buy Macs (with OS X) because it looks good, not because they've done research on the OS! You're statement is false, provided that you were supposed to start with "Typically choices like Linux and OS X ARE* for."

[mushrooshi @ Mar 10th 2008 8:05PM]

Another reason for it's downfall:

I am currently having linux issues, trying to have a windows box print to a fedora box.

[Terc @ Mar 10th 2008 11:49PM]

Sounds like a Windows issue to me.

[Joshua Walters @ Mar 10th 2008 8:19PM]

Of the two people I knew that bought it, the one that was aware of what it was when they bought it would have known to look online.

That tells me this is a wise move.

The other person (my cousin) didnt realize the Linux aspect, but Ive helped him get it working better for him, and he likes it now.

[Eriq @ Mar 10th 2008 11:49PM]

Dave, that's a silly response (why everyone ranked your response lowest of all). You said "by "less tech savy" not knowing it didnt come with windows, you mean old senile people and/or those that live in trailers?"

Keep in your very narrow mind that MOST people are used to Windows or MacOS. Linux is a foreign operating system to even basic users. By basic users I mean people who don't use a computer very much (I have very wealth millionaire clients in their 40's who don't use computers much, at all). And most people are used to Windows--period. Whether from seeing it at the office place or anywhere else, MOST people see are used to seeing the Windows OS.

Even though Linux might make sense to standard and more advanced computer users, the interface is still foreign and difficult to find true support for it.

[bob e @ Mar 10th 2008 8:43PM]

Linux is for losers....
enough said...

[austin @ Mar 10th 2008 8:45PM]

i agree. and also-

windows is for losers.

i deserve the low ranking about to hit me.

[YoMomma @ Mar 10th 2008 8:59PM]

linux is for losers. yeah im against linux.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 10th 2008 9:27PM]

...as Windows is for sheep

[Jason @ Mar 10th 2008 11:00PM]

Computers are like air conditioning: they don't work if Windoze is open.

[Tony @ Mar 11th 2008 12:32AM]

You all fail.

[Superevil @ Mar 11th 2008 1:11PM]

Just because others are smarter than you and have an easier time figuring it out does not make them losers.