PDA

View Full Version : Ever got a pc with a unwanted Windows licence?



DoeNietWil
April 17th, 2011, 01:25 PM
The French organisations AFUL and FFI are trying to collect evidence that it's hard to get a pc or laptop without Windows OS or preloaded with an alternative OS.

You should fill in this form http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html)if you ever wanted to buy a pc/laptop without windows and weren't allowed or didn't get your money back. This might help you the next time you want to buy a laptop.

Donalt2010
April 17th, 2011, 01:43 PM
Done:-)

Lucradia
April 17th, 2011, 03:45 PM
What about USA People? :<

I also don't know, at all, what to put under "About which undertaking or group do you wish to inform?"

and here in Wisconsin, we don't have a "Have you already contacted the Directorate-General for Competition or other national competition authorities or national regulators in order to obtain assistance?"

D-G
April 17th, 2011, 03:54 PM
It's a free market. Companies can sell their PCs with whatever OS they want. Crying for the law when Desktop Linux is clearly not good enough is ... pathetic.

And please, resist the urge to come at me with any lunatic Microsoft conspiracy theories.

weasel fierce
April 17th, 2011, 04:02 PM
It's a free market. Companies can sell their PCs with whatever OS they want. Crying for the law when Desktop Linux is clearly not good enough is ... pathetic.

And please, resist the urge to come at me with any lunatic Microsoft conspiracy theories.

I imagine google will want to have a few words with you about desktop suitability.

To be honest, I dont really care too much about OEM bundling. I'd rather pursue the fact that I have to pay taxes while microsoft gets millions in tax breaks.

Simian Man
April 17th, 2011, 04:09 PM
If the major companies sold machines with no OS or with Linux, the number of people to buy them mistakenly and get upset would absolutely dwarf the number of people who actually want that. Their customer support would be flooded with questions about why the machine says "No OS found" when they turn it on and why they can't install any of their software. It's just a horrible idea.

Linux is more viable in markets where users are expected to interact with the device in a different way than a traditional computer e.g. Android, WebOS etc.

Aquix
April 17th, 2011, 04:10 PM
No corporations pays taxes to the usa. Google funnels it's money through europe and only pays like 2%.

But cut medicare :)

dwhite
April 17th, 2011, 04:13 PM
It's a free market.

LOL naive at best

James7
April 17th, 2011, 04:19 PM
You could have a system set up the same way people can choose browsers in the EU on Windows.

You could have it so that on first boot the computer offered you a choice. You choose Windows? Now you pay. You choose Linux? Now you don't. It could even let you use Linux and, if you didn't like it, you could switch to Windows (and pay).

That would give people choice, unlike the situation today with Microsoft's monopoly.

The situation is now that you have to demand a refund for an unused Windows licence (http://james7hall.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/77-99-microsoft-tax-refund-from-amazon-uk/).

Simian Man
April 17th, 2011, 04:28 PM
LOL naive at best

Praytell what is stopping a company from selling computers with Linux pre-installed? As far as I know, Microsoft crack teams haven't bombed the buildings of System76 or ZaReason. There is just not much demand. I think you should ask yourself who is being naive.

jaezcurra
April 17th, 2011, 04:30 PM
In our company we usually buy computers from Dell (Spain) and we do not have any problem at all asking for computers with no OS.

dwhite
April 17th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Praytell what is stopping a company from selling computers with Linux pre-installed? As far as I know, Microsoft crack teams haven't bombed the buildings of System76 or ZaReason. There is just not much demand. I think you should ask yourself who is being naive.


Simitatores,

chimps like you always bring the discussion to its lowest common denominator, who said anything about bombing builidings...

D-G
April 17th, 2011, 04:52 PM
LOL naive at best
I see, you possess the gift of self-delusion. Congratulations.

Desktop Linux is fracked up. Just live with it. No Linux distribution offers only so much as a decent incentive for vendors to put it on their computers. The only sane route for a vendor to go would be the Android route where he builds a distribution from scratch. Well, that won't be happening.

Besides, clowns like Jim Zemlin contend that Linux "has won", and that the Desktop as a market is becoming unimportant. So what do you care?

Simian Man
April 17th, 2011, 04:53 PM
Simitatores,

chimps like you always bring the discussion to its lowest common denominator, who said anything about bombing builidings...

Then perhaps you can take the wool off of our eyes and tell us what is conspiring to prevent people from selling Linux boxes.

D-G
April 17th, 2011, 04:53 PM
Simitatores,

chimps like you always bring the discussion to its lowest common denominator, who said anything about bombing builidings...

Most likely he wrote that so that gullible people like you can get a clue, too.

3Miro
April 17th, 2011, 04:56 PM
It's a free market. Companies can sell their PCs with whatever OS they want. Crying for the law when Desktop Linux is clearly not good enough is ... pathetic.

And please, resist the urge to come at me with any lunatic Microsoft conspiracy theories.

Funny you should say that when the only reason MS exists is because of those laws. If the US courts didn't stop Unix at its beginning, we would never have had MS-Dos or Windows.

The Anti-Trust laws exist for a reason, "free market" can lead to exploitation if let run without any control. The point of the law is that people have a choice, so MS and Linux compete on who can make a better product and not on who can get a better deal with the OS distributors.

System76 and ZaReason make a big difference, but it is the case that many people cannot afford those two. I have a crappy lenovo laptop that runs Linux just great, yet I had to pay for an XP licence (I don't know how much) because I couldn't afford to spend another 200 dollars to get System76.

3Miro
April 17th, 2011, 05:02 PM
Then perhaps you can take the wool off of our eyes and tell us what is conspiring to prevent people from selling Linux boxes.

Nobody is talking about selling machines with Linux on them. We are talking about selling machines without Windows on them.

There is nothing to prevent companies form selling you a machine without Windows, yet they don't do it.

dwhite
April 17th, 2011, 05:03 PM
Most likely he wrote that so that gullible people like you can get a clue, too.


no i would say he wrote it like that to cast my comment in a ridiculous light...a common tactic that works very well unfortunately.

in the end i don't really care D-G

i suppose my comment was out of context, not so concerned with MS or Mac or operating systems in general more interested in the idea of the myth of the free market economy, in some arenas the free market is alive and well, like pricing commodities, in others it is a myth, like the price of oil....

Simian Man
April 17th, 2011, 05:17 PM
i suppose my comment was out of context, not so concerned with MS or Mac or operating systems in general more interested in the idea of the myth of the free market economy, in some arenas the free market is alive and well, like pricing commodities, in others it is a myth, like the price of oil....
OK, but we weren't talking about oil prices were we? We are talking about the computer market which is a great example of a free market. You are free to use that out though :).


There is nothing to prevent companies form selling you a machine without Windows, yet they don't do it.

Right because practically nobody wants a computer with no operating system.

dwhite
April 17th, 2011, 05:23 PM
OK, but we weren't talking about oil prices were we?


or bombing buildings were we?

Spice Weasel
April 17th, 2011, 05:23 PM
OEMs get paid to include trial versions of various software packages which allows them to lower the price of the PCs. Do you want to pay more for your desktops and laptops?

3Miro
April 17th, 2011, 05:24 PM
Right because practically nobody wants a computer with no operating system.

Installing and supporting Linux costs to the retailers money. If there are not enough people interested in Linux, then they will not provide Linux. However, selling computers without Windows, it doesn't cost them anything. They can do it for one or millions of customers equally easy ... except they don't.

Elfy
April 17th, 2011, 05:29 PM
This again ...

Moved

In my opinion the reason that PCs get sold with Microsoft is because the majority of people either want it or have no reason or interest in not using it.

The year of the linux desktop is still a long way off.

Elfy
April 17th, 2011, 05:31 PM
You can also pack in the ridiculous comments or I'll just close it.

3Miro
April 17th, 2011, 05:37 PM
OEMs get paid to include trial versions of various software packages which allows them to lower the price of the PCs. Do you want to pay more for your desktops and laptops?

Well, here is your solution. Every laptop comes with a ton of trial software including a trial version of Windows. Then if you want to keep this trial software, you pay the license fees separately. If I don't want windows, then I don't have to play anything, while the computers would still be cheap as MS and other companies would still get to "advertise" to us. This would be "free market", the current situation is not.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 17th, 2011, 07:08 PM
Well, here is your solution. Every laptop comes with a ton of trial software including a trial version of Windows. Then if you want to keep this trial software, you pay the license fees separately. If I don't want windows, then I don't have to play anything, while the computers would still be cheap as MS and other companies would still get to "advertise" to us. This would be "free market", the current situation is not.

I think Microsoft would like that idea. Rather than getting $50 or 35 Euro from the OEM they would get $200 or 139 Euro from the individual buying a license separately after the trial period ran out.

LowSky
April 17th, 2011, 07:11 PM
If anyone doesn't want their copy of Windows 7, just PM me your license. I have a few PC's for family I would love to upgrade.

:guitar:

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 17th, 2011, 07:17 PM
If anyone doesn't want their copy of Windows 7, just PM me your license. I have a few PC's for family I would love to upgrade.

:guitar:

Me too!

:lolflag:

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 17th, 2011, 07:31 PM
I don't look at the OS installed on a computer. I look at the hardware specs and the price. Then I buy the best computer for the price that I can afford at the time.

If someone wants Linux then they can install it. Nothing is stopping them. Unlike the Internet Explorer browser when it was integrated in the Microsoft OS and couldn't be removed.

I hope things improve with Linux distros; however, right now you need to know how to install a distro if you plan to use a Linux distro. Upgrades do not always go smoothly and some distros like Ubuntu have short release cycles that may require re-installation.

The thing is, I think most people want Microsft's OS pre-installed on their computer.

akand074
April 17th, 2011, 07:48 PM
I don't understand how this became an argument about whether Windows or GNU/Linux based OS should be preinstalled. From what I noticed, originally the argument was having to pay for Windows when you don't want it. There are also a minority of people (like me) who can get Windows licenses for free from their University/work. Sure that may be a small minority but I think there should be an option to not have Windows installed by default (giving that option through online orders only seems fair). I believe Dell allows that sometimes I'm not sure if that's the case for all models. But the main argument is that it seems manufacturers are forcing people to pay for a Windows license when there should be an option to opt-out. You can also set it so that it's installed with a 30 day license and if you want it you can get a full license when you buy it but I presume most people would want Windows so that would just cause inconvenience.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 17th, 2011, 07:57 PM
I don't understand how this became an argument about whether Windows or GNU/Linux based OS should be preinstalled. From what I noticed, originally the argument was having to pay for Windows when you don't want it...

I think the argument comes from some people noticing that computers that have Windows installed are actually less expensive because companies like McAfee pay to have their trial-ware installed by the OEM; therefore, lowering the initial cost of the computer for the consumer. It appears that proprietary software companies are subsidizing the cost of a computer using their advertising budgets.

3Miro
April 17th, 2011, 08:45 PM
I think the argument comes from some people noticing that computers that have Windows installed are actually less expensive because companies like McAfee pay to have their trial-ware installed by the OEM; therefore, lowering the initial cost of the computer for the consumer. It appears that proprietary software companies are subsidizing the cost of a computer using their advertising budgets.

Voodoo Economics:

1. MS gives retailers cheap copies of Windows
2. Licenses may be cheaper, but people still pay money for it
3. McAfee and others give retailers money to install trial versions of their software
4. Due to 3, computers with pre-installed trials tend to cost less

Current situation:
2 makes my machine more expensive and 4 makes it cheaper, it is not clear whether we win or lose on the average and definitely not clear in individual cases. On the other hand, MS cannot lose, whether you keep windows or not, they get their share no matter what. In this situation, MS has no incentive to improve Windows, good or bad, they win anyway.

My proposal:
Remove 1 and make MS give out trials like everybody else. Then computers will be cheaper for everyone (we all win). There will be more money for retailers for installing Windows trials (they win). The situation for McAfee and other such companies will stay exactly the same. The only one that would "suffer" is MS, because while they still can win (if people keep windows), they can also lose. Under this scheme, MS will have to compete and improve their product. Note that they can still offer a cheaper version of Windows if you activate it from a retailer's pre-installed trial, so windows wouldn't have to cost 200 dollars.

el_koraco
April 17th, 2011, 08:57 PM
OEMs get paid to include trial versions of various software packages which allows them to lower the price of the PCs. Do you want to pay more for your desktops and laptops?

From what i gather, the point is to get the European Commission to forbid a computer bought without Windows to cost more.

Another point is that we're talking about an institution that takes 10 years to come up with a battery disposal directive, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Johnsie
April 17th, 2011, 09:17 PM
I don't mind getting the Windows license, I just immediately partition it so I can get the best of both worlds. What annoys me the most is when I have to spend an hour or so uninstalling all the extra applications they've put on there. I have a technet subscription and technically could just do a full re-install, but that usually involves the hassle of getting all the drivers. One of the best things about Ubuntu compared to Windows is that more soundcards, graphics cards and networking cards are supported out of the box.

walt.smith1960
April 17th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Nobody is talking about selling machines with Linux on them. We are talking about selling machines without Windows on them.

There is nothing to prevent companies form selling you a machine without Windows, yet they don't do it.

I don't know if it has changed or not, but when Microsoft was building their monopoly and screwing their friends, companies were required to pay a per processor fee to Microsoft whether they installed Windows or not. If I'm paying for it, why would I not install it? Same way they built their Office monopoly. Office was "free!!". Remember that? Why would you pay to install another office suite when this one is free? Now that your company has Gigabytes of proprietary files, It's a walk in the park to leave Office, isn't it? MS would have to charge quite a bit for office to make the investment and headache to leave Office worthwhile. They make be scumbuckets when it comes to business practices but they're not stupid.

smellyman
April 17th, 2011, 09:44 PM
voodoo economics:

1. Ms gives retailers cheap copies of windows
2. Licenses may be cheaper, but people still pay money for it
3. Mcafee and others give retailers money to install trial versions of their software
4. Due to 3, computers with pre-installed trials tend to cost less

current situation:
2 makes my machine more expensive and 4 makes it cheaper, it is not clear whether we win or lose on the average and definitely not clear in individual cases. On the other hand, ms cannot lose, whether you keep windows or not, they get their share no matter what. In this situation, ms has no incentive to improve windows, good or bad, they win anyway.

My proposal:
Remove 1 and make ms give out trials like everybody else. Then computers will be cheaper for everyone (we all win). There will be more money for retailers for installing windows trials (they win). The situation for mcafee and other such companies will stay exactly the same. The only one that would "suffer" is ms, because while they still can win (if people keep windows), they can also lose. Under this scheme, ms will have to compete and improve their product. Note that they can still offer a cheaper version of windows if you activate it from a retailer's pre-installed trial, so windows wouldn't have to cost 200 dollars.

=d>

Perfect solution

Legendary_Bibo
April 17th, 2011, 10:18 PM
You could have a system set up the same way people can choose browsers in the EU on Windows.

You could have it so that on first boot the computer offered you a choice. You choose Windows? Now you pay. You choose Linux? Now you don't. It could even let you use Linux and, if you didn't like it, you could switch to Windows (and pay).

That would give people choice, unlike the situation today with Microsoft's monopoly.

The situation is now that you have to demand a refund for an unused Windows licence (http://james7hall.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/77-99-microsoft-tax-refund-from-amazon-uk/).

The Win7 OEM disc I won had stickers holding the DVD case within its cardboard enclosure that read "If you remove these stickers you agree to Microsoft Windows License Terms and Agreements", or something close to that.

Legendary_Bibo
April 17th, 2011, 10:24 PM
I don't mind getting the Windows license, I just immediately partition it so I can get the best of both worlds. What annoys me the most is when I have to spend an hour or so uninstalling all the extra applications they've put on there. I have a technet subscription and technically could just do a full re-install, but that usually involves the hassle of getting all the drivers. One of the best things about Ubuntu compared to Windows is that more soundcards, graphics cards and networking cards are supported out of the box.

Windows 7 isn't like that. I just made my Windows partition last night. Took as long as installing Ubuntu, and everything just worked. I just had to restart it twice for the updates, but it's not like it prodded me about the updates, and it wasn't really a bother because it's not like it took 20 minutes for a boot. It was only like 5 seconds longer than Ubuntu's boot.

Simian Man
April 17th, 2011, 10:31 PM
Installing and supporting Linux costs to the retailers money. If there are not enough people interested in Linux, then they will not provide Linux. However, selling computers without Windows, it doesn't cost them anything. They can do it for one or millions of customers equally easy ... except they don't.

That's not entirely true. Due to economies of scale, it's easier to just image all of the machines the same and ship them the same. To support no OS, they'd also have to add that option to their website and ordering system. They also would lose the money they make from the pre-installed crapware as other pointed out. It would be cheap for them to offer this, but not free. Moreover there is little benefit of this because, as I say again, the people who want this are an extreme minority.

Linux_junkie
April 17th, 2011, 10:53 PM
If manufactures were to pre-install Linux on their pc's, which distro would be used?

AlexDudko
April 17th, 2011, 11:01 PM
Preinstalled Linux is not always the system people want to have. Several my friends and I recently purchased laptops with SLED preinstalled. Almost all of them installed another distribution (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu) the same day they purchased them. Only I decided to stay with SLED. Since then I had quite a number of issues (I didn't face any of them in Fedora, which I had also installed) and some of them (the major problem is microphone that stopped working after alsa update) are still not solved by now.
There is almost no support: HP (the vendor) say it's SLED installed so ask Novel and on the contrary at the Novel's they say it's an OEM installation so your questions should be addressed to HP. Novel's forum is almost dead and not very much help could be received there.
I think it's not the best way to sell laptops with Linux preinstalled. It's much better to sell them with no OS but provide and support all necessary drivers for their products for various OS's.

AlexDudko
April 17th, 2011, 11:08 PM
If manufactures were to pre-install Linux on their pc's, which distro would be used?

On laptops it's usually Ubuntu and SLED. On servers there's usually a choice between SLES and RHEL. Manufactures tend to preinstall enterprise distributions, Ubuntu is an exception.

disabledaccount
April 17th, 2011, 11:25 PM
the people who want this are an extreme minority.The point is that peoples who knows what is going on are an extreme minority. This is perfect situation both for hw vendors and for MS - but even for windows users this is disadvantage.
First: OEM Windows is crippled by pre-installed bloatware or sometimes even malware and spyware. Uninstalling those "extra additions" is sometimes hard task (especially for noobs), and even after that You'll get at least fragmented registry. Furthermore Vendors are often refusing to respect EULA agreements - in terms of possibility to get refund if You don't want OEM version (eg. You already have Home or Pro version of Windows).

Secondary: Capitalism is built on the basis of free market and fair competition. When we allow to kill free market idea we will kill capitalism - together with many other aspects of freedom.

earthpigg
April 17th, 2011, 11:27 PM
someone in the EU,

if you had the time, it might prove beneficial to find the most used brick-and-mortar venues for purchasing a computer, walk in, look for such PCs, ask staff if they have them, and document your findings.

unknownPoster
April 17th, 2011, 11:52 PM
If manufactures were to pre-install Linux on their pc's, which distro would be used?

There is a small computer distributor in Europe that chose Fuduntu as its standard Linux distribution.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 01:04 AM
That's not entirely true. Due to economies of scale, it's easier to just image all of the machines the same and ship them the same. To support no OS, they'd also have to add that option to their website and ordering system. They also would lose the money they make from the pre-installed crapware as other pointed out. It would be cheap for them to offer this, but not free. Moreover there is little benefit of this because, as I say again, the people who want this are an extreme minority.

Read my Voodo Economics post, I explain things better. I am sure it would cost MS more to better script their system, just I am sure it would be more beneficial to them to force everyone owning a computer to pay them money. This is exactly where the problem is, this goes beyond "free market" into "oppressive monopoly". My second proposal is based exactly on the free market principle and it is a win-win for everyone (except MS as they will have to start competing fairly).

D-G
April 18th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Remove 1 and make MS give out trials like everybody else. Then computers will be cheaper for everyone (we all win). ...
Your plan is flawed from the start. Linux "licenses" are even cheaper than Windows licenses. They don't cost a dime. Therefore 1 is utterly irrelevant. Leveling the playing field means improving Desktop Linux to a point where it's actually enticing for hardware vendors to put it on computers. In principle, Android has shown that there are NO ideological barriers of any kind. If vendors think it will make them more money they will do it. That's the free market at work.

The answer is not "to punish" Microsoft but to get the Linux Desktop together. Such a thing would call IMO for a standard distribution that sets the pace. Unfortunately there is no second Google wanting to do that.

disabledaccount
April 18th, 2011, 08:15 AM
D-G:
Average user must buy OEM Windows whenever he buys new laptop, because it's preinstalled in most cases. EULA is not respected, eg. by SONY, Fujitsu and many others (the only exceptions I know are ASUS and Acer, many problems with Dell - f.e. You can't remove sticker by Yourself - only service can do this). OEM Windows version is not product of full value - eg. lower performance due to installed bloatware + possible presence of dangerous programs (PROOVED !!!). So "normal", cautious user would buy "normal" version anyway (or he has it already).

If You call it "free market" at work then I can only laugh - or assume that You're windows fanboy or MS employee. It's not about linux - it's about selling windows twice for every laptop - what a great market share...

D-G
April 18th, 2011, 08:45 AM
If You call it "free market" at work then I can only laugh - or assume that You're windows fanboy or MS employee. It's not about linux - it's about selling windows twice for every laptop - what a great market share...

It's called free market because hardware vendors are free to choose with what OS they want to ship their computers (or if they want to ship them with none at all). Discounts or not for Windows licenses (all the while forgetting that a discount in the case of volume licensing is a normal business practice), most hardware vendors apparently think that a computer with a pre-installed Windows is much more beneficial to them. I agree.

So stop acting like a drama queen. But there's no need arguing with the likes of you anyway. You've disqualified yourself by claiming that I'm either a Windows fanboy or a Microsoft employee.

samstreet101
April 18th, 2011, 09:02 AM
Praytell what is stopping a company from selling computers with Linux pre-installed? As far as I know, Microsoft crack teams haven't bombed the buildings of System76 or ZaReason. There is just not much demand. I think you should ask yourself who is being naive.
I suspsect you're right in that if people had the choice, a lot of people would still choose Windows because that's what they're used to. However, its not the whole point, Microsoft is well known for paying manufacturers of both hardware components and PC vendors to make their hardware optimised for Windows and so that vendors ship their machines with Windows so that they maintain market share. It's not a simple case of vendors can sell their machines with whatever OS they want, though they can if they want to, like you say Microsoft won't send in the crack teams, however, they are under a fair amount of financial pressure from MS to stick with them

disabledaccount
April 18th, 2011, 09:48 AM
It's called free market because hardware vendors are free to choose with what OS they want to ship their computers (or if they want to ship them with none at all). Discounts or not for Windows licenses (all the while forgetting that a discount in the case of volume licensing is a normal business practice), most hardware vendors apparently think that a computer with a pre-installed Windows is much more beneficial to them. I agree.

So stop acting like a drama queen. But there's no need arguing with the likes of you anyway. You've disqualified yourself by claiming that I'm either a Windows fanboy or a Microsoft employee.You didn't answer to any of my arguments - I'm not surprised. Normal business practice is signing agreement before You pay, not after.

arunb
April 18th, 2011, 09:54 AM
You've disqualified yourself by claiming that I'm either a Windows fanboy or a Microsoft employee

what he probably meant is that, he is neither a 'Windows fanboy or a Microsoft employee'...he missed the 'n' in neither.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Your plan is flawed from the start. Linux "licenses" are even cheaper than Windows licenses. They don't cost a dime. Therefore 1 is utterly irrelevant. Leveling the playing field means improving Desktop Linux to a point where it's actually enticing for hardware vendors to put it on computers. In principle, Android has shown that there are NO ideological barriers of any kind. If vendors think it will make them more money they will do it. That's the free market at work.

The answer is not "to punish" Microsoft but to get the Linux Desktop together. Such a thing would call IMO for a standard distribution that sets the pace. Unfortunately there is no second Google wanting to do that.

Where is the flaw? Currently people get cheaper licenses from the vendors (cheaper than they will if they were to buy them on their own). Under my plan, people will still get those licenses.

Nobody is talking about "punishing" MS, I just want to see fair free market rules. Under the current system, MS is making a product that is unsuitable for my needs, yet I am forced to pay them for a license that has exactly zero value to me. Vendors may be free to chose the OS that they want to cell, but this is not free market either. I (and you) have to be the ones to decide which system we want to buy. Vendors don't care about mine or your interests, only you and I can decide what is best for ourselves. The current system is not a free market one, as MS has to do nothing and they still get money.

Under my system, people will have the choice of their OS. Then if MS wants to sell Windows properly, they will have to make sure to give you something of value for your money. Note that I don't ask anyone to sell pre-installed Linux, Windows can be pre-installed just as it is now, the only condition is that it is a trial version for people to activate if they decide to. Many people will still decide to use Windows, but MS will only get what they "deserve", as in, they will only get money from people that actually want their product.

RiceMonster
April 18th, 2011, 12:53 PM
Under my system, people will have the choice of their OS. Then if MS wants to sell Windows properly, they will have to make sure to give you something of value for your money. Note that I don't ask anyone to sell pre-installed Linux, Windows can be pre-installed just as it is now, the only condition is that it is a trial version for people to activate if they decide to. Many people will still decide to use Windows, but MS will only get what they "deserve", as in, they will only get money from people that actually want their product.

Under your system, will people have to pay full price to activate their windows trial? Probably. Will people be wondering why they suddenly have to activate Windows on their computer when they didn't before? Yep. Will OEMs receive a flood of complaints as a result? You bet.

I don't see why OEMs should be forced to change the way they sell their products just to satisfy such a small group of people. Nobody is going to be switching to Linux because they suddenly have to activate Windows anyway.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 01:30 PM
Under your system, will people have to pay full price to activate their windows trial? Probably. Will people be wondering why they suddenly have to activate Windows on their computer when they didn't before? Yep. Will OEMs receive a flood of complaints as a result? You bet.

I don't see why OEMs should be forced to change the way they sell their products just to satisfy such a small group of people. Nobody is going to be switching to Linux because they suddenly have to activate Windows anyway.

No, people will not have to pay full price for windows. MS can just as easily setup a system so that activation of a vendor pre-installed Windows is cheaper than a purchase of a stand alone one. Note that the difference between the OEM and regular Windows is that under the OEM it is the vendor that is supposed to provide the support, should you have problems with the software. That will remain the way it is.

Also, people will have to activate their windows, but the initial cost of the machine will be less. Imagine all computers cost 100 or so dollars less and then if you want Windows you pay the extra just as you would otherwise.

I don't care if people adopt Linux or not (well, I do, but this isn't the purpose of the system). I care for myself so that I don't have to pay for windows license what I don't want one. I have never used windows on my laptop, nor do I ever intend to, yet it came with a license that couldn't opt out of. Are you saying that because I am in a minority I should just suck it up and pay MS the 100 dollars anyway?

RiceMonster
April 18th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Also, people will have to activate their windows, but the initial cost of the machine will be less. Imagine all computers cost 100 or so dollars less and then if you want Windows you pay the extra just as you would otherwise.

Most people would deem this a hidden cost. Given that $100 actually is the price, people would be wondering why they now have to pay an additional $100 after already purchasing their computer. A lot of Linux users have this misconception that people really care about the OS like they do. They don't. People use their computer to go on facebook, to use Photoshop, to use AutoCAD, to play StarCraft, etc. NOT to use Linux or Windows. The OS is part of a working computer and people won't like they bought a computer that is not yet fully functional.

Besides, where is this 100 dollars coming from? I'm not going to make a claim on what the actual price is, because I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's actually much less than that. Especially since OEMs get bulk licenses which lowers the cost significantly.


Are you saying that because I am in a minority I should just suck it up and pay MS the 100 dollars anyway?

Yep. You can pay the price for Windows when you buy a laptop, or you can buy a laptop with Linux from someone that sells them.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 02:23 PM
Most people would deem this a hidden cost. Given that $100 actually is the price, people would be wondering why they now have to pay an additional $100 after already purchasing their computer. A lot of Linux users have this misconception that people really care about the OS like they do. They don't. People use their computer to go on facebook, to use Photoshop, to use AutoCAD, to play StarCraft, etc. NOT to use Linux or Windows. The OS is part of a working computer and people won't like they bought a computer that is not yet fully functional.

Besides, where is this 100 dollars coming from? I'm not going to make a claim on what the actual price is, because I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's actually much less than that. Especially since OEMs get bulk licenses which lowers the cost significantly.


People don't care what OS they use and I don't care either. I only care that I don't have to pay 100 dollars for a product that I will never use.

I got the 100 dollar figure from Newegg selling a windows 7 OEM license. I have similar setup on places that sell computers with the option of either Windows or Linux, the difference in price is about 100 dollars. I am assuming that the real number might vary from one vendor to another, but I don't think it would vary that much.



Yep. You can pay the price for Windows when you buy a laptop, or you can buy a laptop with Linux from someone that sells them.

Except places that sell those are rather limited. A year and a half ago, I had just started my first job after college, I had a good salary, but money was still tight. The cheapest System76 laptop at the time was about 700 dollars, ZaReason machines are even more expensive. Sys76 was worth the money, except I didn't have the money. So because I couldn't pay another 200 dollars for better hardware, I had to pay 100 dollars for useless OS (as windows is useless to me).

DoeNietWil
April 18th, 2011, 04:15 PM
Dudes and Dudette's chill out.
This thread is not about getting Linux on prebuilds nor is it about stopping the preloaded Windows.
It's about asking evidence of free market abuse.
You have to remember that the EU wants the market to be fair with it's competition and trade laws, and in it's current way these French organizations think that this isn't the case. If a customer doesn't want to use Microsoft's OS he is in his fullest right to not use it, and he should get a refund (if they stuff the preloaded OS full with bloatware it obviously would be a smaller amount of money).

They could simple add something like
We sell this laptop with a Windows configuration. You can also get this laptop with no configuration (no OS), but we offer no guarantee. and there would be no problem, people would have to specifically ask for it so the regular user doesn't get into trouble, while the "power"user doesn't have to pay for unwanted stuff.

Simian Man
April 18th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I got the 100 dollar figure from Newegg selling a windows 7 OEM license. I have similar setup on places that sell computers with the option of either Windows or Linux, the difference in price is about 100 dollars. I am assuming that the real number might vary from one vendor to another, but I don't think it would vary that much.
No way is it close to 100 dollars. If it were, then OEMs would never be able to sell the cheap machines as cheaply as they do. 100 for Windows would be literally one third of the cost of the last two machines I bought. There's just no way.


Except places that sell those are rather limited. A year and a half ago, I had just started my first job after college, I had a good salary, but money was still tight. The cheapest System76 laptop at the time was about 700 dollars, ZaReason machines are even more expensive. Sys76 was worth the money, except I didn't have the money. So because I couldn't pay another 200 dollars for better hardware, I had to pay 100 dollars for useless OS (as windows is useless to me).
Doesn't that tell you that the cost of an OEM copy of Windows can't be as high as you think? Moreover the bigger OEMs can have cheaper products because they sell so many of them and they can amortize some of their costs over the total number of sales. If they start selling machines specialized for such small segments of their consumer base, then they will no longer be able to do sell them so cheaply.

If you want a computer without Windows, there are ways to get them, but you can't bellyache when it's not actually any cheaper. OEMs have no moral obligation to sell you a machine according to your specifications.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 04:50 PM
No way is it close to 100 dollars. If it were, then OEMs would never be able to sell the cheap machines as cheaply as they do. 100 for Windows would be literally one third of the cost of the last two machines I bought. There's just no way.


Doesn't that tell you that the cost of an OEM copy of Windows can't be as high as you think? Moreover the bigger OEMs can have cheaper products because they sell so many of them and they can amortize some of their costs over the total number of sales. If they start selling machines specialized for such small segments of their consumer base, then they will no longer be able to do sell them so cheaply.

If you want a computer without Windows, there are ways to get them, but you can't bellyache when it's not actually any cheaper. OEMs have no moral obligation to sell you a machine according to your specifications.

My Laptop comes with Pentium Dual Core, the cheapest System76 laptop comes with Core i3. There is a huge difference in price right there. I want the difference to come form cheaper hardware, not some unknown magical place.

What do you think a windows license costs?

If it is so impossible for the vendors to sell machines without windows (which I don't believe), why don't we at least have a system allowing us to get a refund for Windows.

Grenage
April 18th, 2011, 04:58 PM
People don't want to buy a car, and then have to buy the inside trim - they just want a car.

I can see where you are coming from, but there really is sod all market for such a modular process. There's a niche, and companies such as System76 take advantage of that.

Hell, if someone really cares that much, they'll probably just buy the parts; it only takes 10 minutes to assemble a modern computer.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 05:03 PM
My Laptop comes with Pentium Dual Core, the cheapest System76 laptop comes with Core i3. There is a huge difference in price right there. I want the difference to come form cheaper hardware, not some unknown magical place.

What do you think a windows license costs?

If it is so impossible for the vendors to sell machines without windows (which I don't believe), why don't we at least have a system allowing us to get a refund for Windows.

It sounds like your problem is with System76 not having the product that you want, and not the product you chose to purchase.

If buying a computer with Windows was that big of a deal you can always just not buy a computer with Windows.

If you aren't happy with computers that come with Windows, and are also unhappy with the selection of computers that come with Linux pre-installed; start a company that sells the product that you think should be created.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 05:15 PM
It sounds like your problem is with System76 not having the product that you want, and not the product you chose to purchase.


Both actually. If Sys76 doesn't have what I can afford, I have to get it somewhere else.



If buying a computer with Windows was that big of a deal you can always just not buy a computer with Windows.


And you don't have a problem of this being incredibly hard, if not impossible in some cases. I guess I am the only one having a problem with MS establishing a tax on the industry in direct violation of free market principles.



If you aren't happy with computers that come with Windows, and are also unhappy with the selection of computers that come with Linux pre-installed; start a company that sells the product that you think should be created.

You aren't serious now are you? If I don't have enough money to spend for a laptop without windows, I should open a small business. :confused:

Grenage: 10 minutes is for a desktop, I have 4 done that way, how about a custom laptop?

Paddy Landau
April 18th, 2011, 05:21 PM
Hell, if someone really cares that much, they'll probably just buy the parts; it only takes 10 minutes to assemble a modern computer.
This has really opened my eyes! I thought only very technically-minded people could build a computer out of parts, and it would take hours, LOL.

Grenage
April 18th, 2011, 05:25 PM
Grenage: 10 minutes is for a desktop, I have 4 done that way, how about a custom laptop?

Touché, a valid point; laptops are a bit different. I've always installed Linux over an existing laptop install, mainly because there was nothing cheaper without an OS. If I sell the laptop, at least I can sell it with an OS that 'most' people will want.

In an ideal world, the option would exist; unfortunately the hassle currently seems to outweigh the demand, and I can't blame PC manufacturers for that.

Grenage
April 18th, 2011, 05:26 PM
This has really opened my eyes! I thought only very technically-minded people could build a computer out of parts, and it would take hours, LOL.

Not these days! When I were a lad...

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 05:30 PM
And you don't have a problem of this being incredibly hard, if not impossible in some cases. I guess I am the only one having a problem with MS establishing a tax on the industry in direct violation of free market principles.

Microsoft is a corporation, not a government. There is no such thing as a Microsoft "tax", it is just FUD crafted by people that hate Microsoft.



You aren't serious now are you? If I don't have enough money to spend for a laptop without windows, I should open a small business. :confused:

Why wouldn't I be serious? If you don't like the products out there today, create better ones. It's called putting your money where your mouth is. ;)


Grenage: 10 minutes is for a desktop, I have 4 done that way, how about a custom laptop?

You can find barebones laptops and netbooks if you look around. Ocz offers or offered one called the "Neutrino".

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 05:31 PM
Touché, a valid point; laptops are a bit different. I've always installed Linux over an existing laptop install, mainly because there was nothing cheaper without an OS. If I sell the laptop, at least I can sell it with an OS that 'most' people will want.

In an ideal world, the option would exist; unfortunately the hassle currently seems to outweigh the demand, and I can't blame PC manufacturers for that.

You can get a barebones laptop if you look for one. 5 second google search:
http://www.costcentral.com/proddetail/MSI_Computer_MSI_Whitebook_MS_1681_ID1/937168133003/11109516/

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Microsoft is a corporation, not a government. There is no such thing as a Microsoft "tax", it is just FUD crafted by people that hate Microsoft.


Tax is something that I pay to the government in the country that I live. I have to pay taxes regardless whether I like it or not. A business that provides a service is something that I can chose to use or not (or I get to pick among several businesses). When businesses have to compete for my money, that gets them to improve their products.

"Taxes" are mandatory, "purchases" are optional. I did not have an option to not pay MS, for all practical purposes, this is a "tax". (except the government does provide some services with our money, whether it is for schools, roads, police etc ... I wonder what service MS provides for me, now that I have given them the money).




Why wouldn't I be serious? If you don't like the products out there today, create better ones. It's called putting your money where your mouth is. ;)


I would like to put my money in my mouth ... if I had any money. This seems to be a hard concept for you to understand.



You can find barebones laptops and netbooks if you look around. Ocz offers or offered one called the "Neutrino".

Something to look into.

Simian Man
April 18th, 2011, 05:39 PM
What do you think a windows license costs?
I don't know, I don't think that info is published. Also keep in mind that OEMs also get paid to install trial versions and other pre-installed junk on top of the OEM Windows. So you have to subtract the money they make that way from the cost of Windows.


And you don't have a problem of this being incredibly hard, if not impossible in some cases. I guess I am the only one having a problem with MS establishing a tax on the industry in direct violation of free market principles.
It's not a tax because you don't have to pay it, and it doesn't violate the free market. You can buy computers without Windows in several different ways. If you don't like those options, that's fine, but you aren't being strong-armed into anything.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 05:41 PM
it's not a tax because you don't have to pay it, and it doesn't violate the free market. You can buy computers without windows in several different ways. If you don't like those options, that's fine, but you aren't being strong-armed into anything.

qft

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 05:43 PM
Tax is something that I pay to the government in the country that I live. I have to pay taxes regardless whether I like it or not. A business that provides a service is something that I can chose to use or not (or I get to pick among several businesses). When businesses have to compete for my money, that gets them to improve their products.

"Taxes" are mandatory, "purchases" are optional. I did not have an option to not pay MS, for all practical purposes, this is a "tax". (except the government does provide some services with our money, whether it is for schools, roads, police etc ... I wonder what service MS provides for me, now that I have given them the money).

You can purchase a computer without Windows + Microsoft is not your government. Implying that Windows is a tax is illogical. You have an option to purchase computers without Windows, you said so yourself.


I would like to put my money in my mouth ... if I had any money. This seems to be a hard concept for you to understand.

Then it sounds like you don't need a new computer at all since you used one that is already obviously functional to type your reply.

Perhaps you should re-prioritize. ;)

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Then it sounds like you don't need a new computer at all since you used one that is already obviously functional to type your reply.

Perhaps you should re-prioritize. ;)

Face-palm! I was describing the situation that I was in a year and a half ago, I needed a laptop to work while I travel, but since this was my first job after graduation, I didn't yet have enough money to buy a Sysem76 machine ... ugh, why do I even bother.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 06:02 PM
I don't know, I don't think that info is published. Also keep in mind that OEMs also get paid to install trial versions and other pre-installed junk on top of the OEM Windows. So you have to subtract the money they make that way from the cost of Windows.


And this is the entire point of my earlier proposal. If Windows comes as a trial, then it can come with all the other trials. Every company gets to "advertise", all customers can chose to stay with what it on it (and pay for it), or pick something else (and possibly pay for that too).

I don't have to keep the trial versions of any software that I buy, except Windows. MS doesn't play by everyone else's rules.



It's not a tax because you don't have to pay it, and it doesn't violate the free market. You can buy computers without Windows in several different ways. If you don't like those options, that's fine, but you aren't being strong-armed into anything.

It is close-enough to being "strong-armed".

beew
April 18th, 2011, 06:29 PM
I like the trial idea. The latop can come with Windiows but it will expire in say 30 days unless you pay and activate. You can do it at purchase but others shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't use it.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
Face-palm! I was describing the situation that I was in a year and a half ago, I needed a laptop to work while I travel, but since this was my first job after graduation, I didn't yet have enough money to buy a Sysem76 machine ... ugh, why do I even bother.

Cheap Linux netbooks (Eee PC) were ~$200 a year and a half ago.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 06:44 PM
It is close-enough to being "strong-armed".

A. Did a Microsoft representative go to your house and hold a gun to your head making you purchase a Windows computer?

B. Did Microsoft threaten you with jail time for not paying your "taxes"?

Unless you answer yes to A or B, you weren't strong armed.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 06:49 PM
Cheap Linux netbooks (Eee PC) were ~$200 a year and a half ago.

I looked at those and the System76 netbook was well within price range, but unfortunately they wouldn't power Matlab. Also, Netbooks are good for mail and occasional word, it would have been torture if I had to do LaTeX or C/C++ or any kind of code editing on that screen.

I did get good enough hardware at a good enough price. I can now afford any System76 laptop (or ZaReason or anyone else). It is just that at the time I had to pay for an MS software license, something that I had no need for.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 06:53 PM
I looked at those and the System76 netbook was well within price range, but unfortunately they wouldn't power Matlab. Also, Netbooks are good for mail and occasional word, it would have been torture if I had to do LaTeX or C/C++ or any kind of code editing on that screen.

I did get good enough hardware at a good enough price. I can now afford any System76 laptop (or ZaReason or anyone else). It is just that at the time I had to pay for an MS software license, something that I had no need for.

Interesting, I wrote Jupiter on a 10" Eee PC. ;)

Microsoft bundled licenses are in the ballpark of $10 for a netbook (Starter) and $30 for a laptop. A manufacturer accidentally published the costs around 2 years ago.

It has always surprised me that Linux bundled devices are often more expensive, but in a lot of cases the price of the Windows variant is offset by the crapware that's bundled.

In a way we can thank crapware for offsetting the costs of the computers, but at the same time hate it because of the added cruft.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 06:56 PM
A. Did a Microsoft representative go to your house and hold a gun to your head making you purchase a Windows computer?

B. Did Microsoft threaten you with jail time for not paying your "taxes"?

Unless you answer yes to A or B, you weren't strong armed.

Unless I payed them a license fee, I wouldn't be able to get a good enough laptop. Without the laptop, I wouldn't be where I am right now in my career. MS is making money out of my advancement, yet I never needed or used their product.

I agree that "tax" isn't the best way to describe this and I am not sure what a good word is; however, do you think this is fair business practice?

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 06:57 PM
Unless I payed them a license fee, I wouldn't be able to get a good enough laptop. Without the laptop, I wouldn't be where I am right now in my career. MS is making money out of my advancement, yet I never needed or used their product.

I agree that "tax" isn't the best way to describe this and I am not sure what a good word is; however, do you think this is fair business practice?

I don't know that I would call it a fair business practice, but I also wouldn't call it unfair since there is (in my opinion) adequate competition.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 06:59 PM
Interesting, I wrote Jupiter on a 10" Eee PC. ;)

Microsoft bundled licenses are in the ballpark of $10 for a netbook (Starter) and $30 for a laptop. A manufacturer accidentally published the costs around 2 years ago.

It has always surprised me that Linux bundled devices are often more expensive, but in a lot of cases the price of the Windows variant is offset by the crapware that's bundled.

In a way we can thank crapware for offsetting the costs of the computers, but at the same time hate it because of the added cruft.

Under my proposal you are still going to get all the "cruft" on your machine just like before. This is a form of advertisement and so long as you can remove it, it is fine. I just want to make Windows part of that advertisement bundle so they can pre-install windows, but you don't have to pay if you don't want it.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 07:00 PM
Under my proposal you are still going to get all the "cruft" on your machine just like before. This is a form of advertisement and so long as you can remove it, it is fine. I just want to make Windows part of that advertisement bundle so they can pre-install windows, but you don't have to pay if you don't want it.

You would still be charged for it though, as the cost to build the "golden image" would still be bundled in. The cost is there either way, but if we are technically talking about removing the cost from Windows this doesn't remove all of it. ;)

aysiu
April 18th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Your plan is flawed from the start. Linux "licenses" are even cheaper than Windows licenses. They don't cost a dime. Therefore 1 is utterly irrelevant. Leveling the playing field means improving Desktop Linux to a point where it's actually enticing for hardware vendors to put it on computers. In principle, Android has shown that there are NO ideological barriers of any kind. If vendors think it will make them more money they will do it. That's the free market at work.

The answer is not "to punish" Microsoft but to get the Linux Desktop together. Such a thing would call IMO for a standard distribution that sets the pace. Unfortunately there is no second Google wanting to do that. Vendors don't stay away from desktop Linux because it isn't technologically up to par. They stay away from it, because there isn't an agreement in place with a Linux corporation to preinstall it.

I used Android 1.5, which was terrible. I now use Android 2.3, which is amazing. HTC and Motorola didn't go with Android because it was improved enough. They went with it because they had a business deal with Google.

The whole problem with desktop Linux is exactly the mentality of "If we only improve it more people will use it" or "If we only add this feature or make it more user-friendly people will use it." People use what comes preinstalled from big-name corporations that's advertised properly. It doesn't matter how "improved" desktop Linux is as long as you have to download a .iso to burn, learn how to boot from, repartition, install, and troubleshoot yourself.

More details here:
Ubuntu: The Open Source Apple Challenger? (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/ubuntu-the-open-source-apple-challenger/)
Linux-for-the-masses narratives (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-for-the-masses-narratives/)

aysiu
April 18th, 2011, 07:56 PM
By the way, I wrote those back in 2008, and it seems nothing about Ubuntu's strategy has changed, so Bug #1 will never be fixed.

At this point, mainstream media already thinks "the desktop" is dead in favor of touchscreen tablets, so Android is definitely as close to "desktop Linux" as the masses will probably ever get.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 08:22 PM
You would still be charged for it though, as the cost to build the "golden image" would still be bundled in. The cost is there either way, but if we are technically talking about removing the cost from Windows this doesn't remove all of it. ;)

I think we are talking about different things here.

Lets take a look at Windows and McAfee AV.

MS develops Windows and has a cost associated with that. McAfee develops their AV software and has some cost associated with it. In both cases, the cost is mostly in making the initial image of the software, all copies afterwards are next to free.

The computer vendor decides to sell a large number of identical computers. The vendor builds a "master software image" once and then installs that image on every machine. The cost for the vendor is to get the image once, installing it on a number of machines afterwards is next to free.

McAfee pays the vendor to install a trial version of the software on the vendor master image (and thus on all machines sold). McAfee does that as part of their advertisement campaign. When people get their computers, they can either pay McAfee to keep their software or remove it and install something else. If McAfee makes good software, then on average, people will tend to keep their product and pay them license fees and thus McAfee will make profit. If McAfee makes a garbage product, then most people will not keep their software and the company will die in the natural selection of the free market. Bottom line is: in order to stay in business, McAfee has to make a good product so that people will chose it.

I don't know if MS gives any money to the vendors or not, this isn't the problem. The issue is that part of the money that the vendor gets from customers, goes directly into the hand of MS. Thus, even if MS makes a bad product and even if many people don't like it and uninstall it, MS still gets the money (hence the analogy with "tax", as in something that you get by default, although it isn't a good analogy). Natural selection does not apply to MS, hence they have no incentive to really improve.

All that I want is for MS to do business exactly like McAfee, i.e. ship a free trial of their product. This will not raise the cost for the vendor (in fact it may lower it as the vendor may get advertisement money from MS). It may raise the cost for MS a little, but probably not, as they already have the technology to do those free trials, they were giving Windows 7 trials left and right anyway.

The scheme can only make MS improve windows so that they become more competitive. Linux users will win as they don't have to pay for licenses they are not using, and Windows users will win as MS will have stronger incentive to make them happy.

Simian Man
April 18th, 2011, 08:29 PM
I don't know if MS gives any money to the vendors or not, this isn't the problem. The issue is that part of the money that the vendor gets from customers, goes directly into the hand of MS. Thus, even if MS makes a bad product and even if many people don't like it and uninstall it, MS still gets the money (hence the analogy with "tax", as in something that you get by default, although it isn't a good analogy). Natural selection does not apply to MS, hence they have no incentive to really improve.

All that I want is for MS to do business exactly like McAfee, i.e. ship a free trial of their product. This will not raise the cost for the vendor (in fact it may lower it as the vendor may get advertisement money from MS). It may raise the cost for MS a little, but probably not, as they already have the technology to do those free trials, they were giving Windows 7 trials left and right anyway.

The problem with that is that, for most people, the operating system is an integral part of their computer. Unlike McAffee, if they remove Windows their computer will no longer function. You and I both know that we could make a computer work without Windows, but most users don't and there's no incentive for OEMs to give their customers the option to do so.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 08:29 PM
I think we are talking about different things here.

Lets take a look at Windows and McAfee AV.

MS develops Windows and has a cost associated with that. McAfee develops their AV software and has some cost associated with it. In both cases, the cost is mostly in making the initial image of the software, all copies afterwards are next to free.

The computer vendor decides to sell a large number of identical computers. The vendor builds a "master software image" once and then installs that image on every machine. The cost for the vendor is to get the image once, installing it on a number of machines afterwards is next to free.

McAfee pays the vendor to install a trial version of the software on the vendor master image (and thus on all machines sold). McAfee does that as part of their advertisement campaign. When people get their computers, they can either pay McAfee to keep their software or remove it and install something else. If McAfee makes good software, then on average, people will tend to keep their product and pay them license fees and thus McAfee will make profit. If McAfee makes a garbage product, then most people will not keep their software and the company will die in the natural selection of the free market. Bottom line is: in order to stay in business, McAfee has to make a good product so that people will chose it.

I don't know if MS gives any money to the vendors or not, this isn't the problem. The issue is that part of the money that the vendor gets from customers, goes directly into the hand of MS. Thus, even if MS makes a bad product and even if many people don't like it and uninstall it, MS still gets the money (hence the analogy with "tax", as in something that you get by default, although it isn't a good analogy). Natural selection does not apply to MS, hence they have no incentive to really improve.

All that I want is for MS to do business exactly like McAfee, i.e. ship a free trial of their product. This will not raise the cost for the vendor (in fact it may lower it as the vendor may get advertisement money from MS). It may raise the cost for MS a little, but probably not, as they already have the technology to do those free trials, they were giving Windows 7 trials left and right anyway.

The scheme can only make MS improve windows so that they become more competitive. Linux users will win as they don't have to pay for licenses they are not using, and Windows users will win as MS will have stronger incentive to make them happy.

We aren't talking about different things. You want to eliminate the license cost, I understand that. Your proposal though may eliminate the license cost (as you propose) but it wouldn't eliminate the R&D cost associated with building the "free trial" image for distribution on the devices. I simply noted that to eliminate all costs associated with Windows, you would ultimately have to eliminate the trial version too.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 08:35 PM
By the way, I wrote those back in 2008, and it seems nothing about Ubuntu's strategy has changed, so Bug #1 will never be fixed.

At this point, mainstream media already thinks "the desktop" is dead in favor of touchscreen tablets, so Android is definitely as close to "desktop Linux" as the masses will probably ever get.

I like the blogs. You are very right about the four narratives. I do build my own desktops and I will probably never get a pre-build one, but the next laptop I get will be Linux (probably Sytem76, as I have bought from them in the past and I was happy). Also, I don't think Canonical should go for software/hardware integration beyond cutting deals with vendors, I would like to see Canonical stay a software company.

As for the "desktop is dead", I am not so sure about that. I don't think mobile devices will even match the power of the desktop and this makes a difference. Many, if not most, people will switch to laptops or whatever, but desktops will stay. However, due to the more specific hardware, Linux will have to look for a closer hardware/software integration. In most cases, you cannot just download a .iso and get it to work as you would on a desktop.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 08:38 PM
We aren't talking about different things. You want to eliminate the license cost, I understand that. Your proposal though may eliminate the license cost (as you propose) but it wouldn't eliminate the R&D cost associated with building the "free trial" image for distribution on the devices. I simply noted that to eliminate all costs associated with Windows, you would ultimately have to eliminate the trial version too.

Why? The cost to put the trial on the machine should be payed by MS as part of their advertisement campaign (just like McAfee), not by the end user.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 08:42 PM
Why? The cost to put the trial on the machine should be payed by MS as part of their advertisement campaign (just like McAfee), not by the end user.

The costs associated with building the gold image for OEM deployment falls on the vendor, not Microsoft.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 08:43 PM
The problem with that is that, for most people, the operating system is an integral part of their computer. Unlike McAffee, if they remove Windows their computer will no longer function. You and I both know that we could make a computer work without Windows, but most users don't and there's no incentive for OEMs to give their customers the option to do so.

AV is integral part of Windows and while removing it will not instantly break the system, it will be only a matter of time before you get something and the system will malfunction. AV is not like a complete OS, but many people in Windows have the problem that they keep expired trials of AV and don't get protection. And it is not like a OS installer cannot be made to function as in "download -> double-click -> Install". The complexity of Ubuntu installer for example comes because of all the option to keep windows.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 08:45 PM
The costs associated with building the gold image for OEM deployment falls on the vendor, not Microsoft.

How is an OEM image with full version of Windows easier or harder than an image of trial version of Windows. Also, the vendor may be doing the work, but McAfee is paying for their share of it, to make sure they get to offer their product.

fuduntu
April 18th, 2011, 08:53 PM
How is an OEM image with full version of Windows easier or harder than an image of trial version of Windows. Also, the vendor may be doing the work, but McAfee is paying for their share of it, to make sure they get to offer their product.

You glossed over my point (probably unintentionally) which wasn't that it would be easier or harder, but that you are still incurring the cost of building the Windows image (which is passed down from the vendor to you) regardless of it being a trial or full version.

This means that you are still paying for Windows even if it isn't in the form of a license fee. ;)

aysiu
April 18th, 2011, 08:56 PM
I like the blogs. You are very right about the four narratives. I do build my own desktops and I will probably never get a pre-build one, but the next laptop I get will be Linux (probably Sytem76, as I have bought from them in the past and I was happy). I also bought two netbooks with Linux preinstalled. Unfortunately, we're not typical users. Most people who buy Linux preinstalled do so out of principle and not because they are looking for the best deal. If Linux preinstalled is to be a viable option, a major OEM has to really get behind it (Dell is a great example of how not to get behind Linux offerings).


Also, I don't think Canonical should go for software/hardware integration beyond cutting deals with vendors, I would like to see Canonical stay a software company. That's where I disagree with you, but even if they go for cutting deals, the deals they cut have to be better than what happened with Dell. If I'm recalling correctly, they didn't even work with Dell to get Ubuntu preinstalled. Dell just took Ubuntu themselves and did it. And the Ubuntu offerings were nothing more than laptops meant for Windows that they just plopped Ubuntu on. No optimization or extensive user testing. No picking Linux-recommended hardware (Broadcom anyone?). Same deal when I bought my HP Mini with Ubuntu preinstalled--Broadcom wireless? Really?

Android phones aren't just iPhones that some random company plopped Android onto. They are built for Android, including the four buttons for Home, Back, Search, and Menu.


As for the "desktop is dead", I am not so sure about that. I don't think mobile devices will even match the power of the desktop and this makes a difference. Many, if not most, people will switch to laptops or whatever, but desktops will stay. However, due to the more specific hardware, Linux will have to look for a closer hardware/software integration. In most cases, you cannot just download a .iso and get it to work as you would on a desktop. Okay, "dead" is a bit much, but the point is that the vast majority of users can get 90% of their computing done with a touchscreen tablet, because most people use computers (at least away from work) for consuming and not producing.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 09:32 PM
You glossed over my point (probably unintentionally) which wasn't that it would be easier or harder, but that you are still incurring the cost of building the Windows image (which is passed down from the vendor to you) regardless of it being a trial or full version.

This means that you are still paying for Windows even if it isn't in the form of a license fee. ;)

"Pay" would have a different meaning here. I do "pay" when I watch adds on the TV, but I don't have to buy insurance from All State if I don't want to.

I don't mind if I get a computer with windows already on it and I don't mind "paying" (with my time) to remove it. That is, so long as MS is the one paying (money wise) for its install in the first place. MS can get their money back, if I decide to keep the OS. Otherwise, MS should swallow the cost just like All State is losing when they show me an add as I don't even have a car and CVS is putting coupons for diapers in my mail every week, when I don't have kids.

3Miro
April 18th, 2011, 09:35 PM
That's where I disagree with you, but even if they go for cutting deals, the deals they cut have to be better than what happened with Dell. If I'm recalling correctly, they didn't even work with Dell to get Ubuntu preinstalled. Dell just took Ubuntu themselves and did it. And the Ubuntu offerings were nothing more than laptops meant for Windows that they just plopped Ubuntu on. No optimization or extensive user testing. No picking Linux-recommended hardware (Broadcom anyone?). Same deal when I bought my HP Mini with Ubuntu preinstalled--Broadcom wireless? Really?


Dell was things done the wrong way. What I want to see is someone like System76 (in terms of compatible hardware), but going more aggressively with lower cost and mass marketing, even it means weaker machines.

aysiu
April 19th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Dell was things done the wrong way. What I want to see is someone like System76 (in terms of compatible hardware), but going more aggressively with lower cost and mass marketing, even it means weaker machines.
Unfortunately. outside of Linux online communities, the System76 brand is not really a name brand. Android was able to establish itself right out the gate because Google was a name brand, and when it combined the next year with Motorola, that was two name brands together.

System76 and Ubuntu are two names most people haven't heard of when it comes to computing.

aysiu
April 19th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Dell was things done the wrong way. What I want to see is someone like System76 (in terms of compatible hardware), but going more aggressively with lower cost and mass marketing, even it means weaker machines.
Unfortunately. outside of Linux online communities, the System76 brand is not really a name brand. Android was able to establish itself right out the gate because Google was a name brand, and when it combined the next year with Motorola, that was two name brands together.

System76 and Ubuntu are two names most people haven't heard of when it comes to computing.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 19th, 2011, 01:02 AM
...Referring to previous posts...

3Miro, if you fell this strongly about it you should contact the US Federal Trade Commission. The OP posted about a European Union Commission case that I don't think will necessarily have much effect on you one way or another since you live in the USA. :)

Lucradia
April 19th, 2011, 01:10 AM
Seeing as searching for "Lucradia" gives no results, I'm assuming no one answered my post.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 19th, 2011, 01:17 AM
Seeing as searching for "Lucradia" gives no results, I'm assuming no one answered my post.
No one answered your post; however, I posted above in a reply to 3Miro that probably is relevant to your post.

...you should contact the US Federal Trade Commission. The OP posted about a European Union Commission case that I don't think will necessarily have much effect on you one way or another since you live in the USA.

Rasa1111
April 19th, 2011, 01:33 AM
This again ...

Moved

In my opinion the reason that PCs get sold with Microsoft is because the majority of people either want it or have no reason or interest in not using it.




OR they have absolutely no idea that they actually have a CHOICE.

Many people I speak to have no idea that there is something "other than windows" for their PC's OS.

More times than not, it goes something like this..

"What OS do you use on your computers?"

"what do you mean what operating system do I use?"

"What "Runs" your computer?"

'You mean like 'microsoft/windows?"

"Yes"

" There is something else other than windows?"

"yes"

"Oh, I had no idea. I just thought that if you have a computer, you use windows/microsoft"

"No, that's false, that's just what many people think"~
"and it is exactly what they are expected/wanted to think" lol

"So, you mean.. I can run/use a computer that doesnt have "microsoft" on it?... I never knew!"

You never knew, for a reason!
It's called 'corporate america', and "Greed".

lol

MisterGaribaldi
April 19th, 2011, 03:35 AM
Ever got a pc with a unwanted Windows licence?

Nope.

As they would probably say in France, mais aussi, je mettais toujours la copie de Windows à la bonne utilisation.

Of course, I don't live in France, so I don't speak a word of French.

Derxst
April 19th, 2011, 04:53 AM
Yep. And I use that license for the Windows virtual machine that use from time-to-time.

disabledaccount
April 19th, 2011, 07:11 AM
Why? The cost to put the trial on the machine should be payed by MS as part of their advertisement campaign (just like McAfee), not by the end user.
I'm not saying that You are wrong but let's imagime a bit different situation, first old trick:
Suppose You want to sell something for $200 - what is the best way to sell it fast? It's simple, you make a label:

$280 - no more!!
now only $200 !!!!! catch Your chance!!! It works for 50 years or more....

Suppose vendors are paying not for OEM copies, but for the right to use The Logo.
Why do they need some sticker to sell good hardware? Well they wouldnt need it - but... there are tricks that can force them to buy it.
First, You give the logo for free to 1 company, but everyone thinks that You have sold "the rights". Then You advertise products with "the logo" as beeing superior to others, because "it was confirmed by compatibility testing" and other bullshits. Average joes wants those better and "tested" products - so... other hw vendors wants to have the logo on their products too. The more vendors are catched, the more powerfull and more costly The Logo becomes - so finall hardware price is raising too, but who cares, You are the ruler of the market!
But there are Trade Comissions and other organisations which are sueing You for monopoly practices or unfair competition and imposes a fines - so you must change the strategy a bit. Now You can't just force placing your Logo on everything - peoples must have a choice - well, ok:
suppose laptop final cost is $500, but vendor must pay $100 for using the logo - how to solve this? It's really simple. You made another agreement - in exchange for lowering the price of The Logo vendor will not be selling "cheaper" versions of his products - and, what is incredible - both sides will have gains! ...just look at this:
The logo now cost only $50, but the final prices are:
with logo: $600 : $50 for You, additional $50 for the vendor
without logo: $590: if someone is so stupid to buy this version, then it's +$90 for vendor
Vendor is happy - lower costs, bigger gains
You are happy - Trade Commission can't do anything - and You haven't really lost those $50 - because "The Logo" is only useless piece of paper - many customers will have to buy normal version of operating system - oh, but the normal version is called Pro and costs $200.

....

Paddy Landau
April 19th, 2011, 07:52 AM
I like the trial idea. The latop can come with Windiows but it will expire in say 30 days unless you pay and activate. You can do it at purchase but others shouldn't be forced to pay if they don't use it.
Microsoft already does that with Office. Why not with Windows itself?


I agree that "tax" isn't the best way to describe this and I am not sure what a good word is; however, do you think this is fair business practice?
I think might be. 'Tax' does not necessarily mean a government-coerced fee. It can mean "a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand" (from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax)).

arunb
April 19th, 2011, 09:08 AM
most people don't want to take a risk by installing an 'unfamiliar' operating system on their brand new laptops. Thats why most people go in for the pre-installed option.

Paddy Landau
April 19th, 2011, 09:19 AM
most people don't want to take a risk by installing an 'unfamiliar' operating system on their brand new laptops. Thats why most people go in for the pre-installed option.
+1. Remember that most users are not technically minded. They want a computer that "just works" (which is why Windows, in the past, has proven such a frustrating experience). In the same way, when I buy a car, I want it to "just work;" I'm not a mechanic.

3Miro
April 19th, 2011, 10:26 AM
Yep. And I use that license for the Windows virtual machine that use from time-to-time.

There is a good question, can I legally use that license from my laptop for Virtual Box. Does it matter if it is the same machine or another machine. I know I cannot just install it on my desktop to play games, but can I use it under Virtual Box? My guess is only if it is the same machine, but I may be wrong.

Grenage
April 19th, 2011, 10:28 AM
There is a good question, can I legally use that license from my laptop for Virtual Box. Does it matter if it is the same machine or another machine. I know I cannot just install it on my desktop to play games, but can I use it under Virtual Box? My guess is only if it is the same machine, but I may be wrong.

OEMs are only for the one machine, and aren't transferable. I'm not sure how it's viewed if it's a VM on that machine - I can't imagine that would be a problem.

el_koraco
April 19th, 2011, 10:42 AM
There's no problem with legality, it's only a matter of whether you'll get it activated.

Lucradia
April 19th, 2011, 01:32 PM
OEMs are only for one motherboard, and aren't transferable. I'm not sure how it's viewed if it's a VM on that motherboard - I can't imagine that would be a problem.

Fixed for you. Also, when a VM runs, an OEM actually isn't supposed to activate. Windows Vista and newer have a piece of code that forbids them from executing an activation in a Virtual Machine.

Zorgoth
April 19th, 2011, 07:32 PM
Microsoft is probably genuinely more worried about piracy than Linux when it makes everyone preinstall their OS and doesn't offer refunds, but I think they just need to find another way to tackle piracy. The fact is, Microsoft has a monopoly and saying that anyone who buys a laptop owes Microsoft money is ridiculous. Anti-monopoly regulations exist for a reason - they result in inferior products at increased prices (e.g., um..., Windows). I'll bet Windows would be a better OS if they had to compete seriously for the low-cost consumer desktop market, and Linux certainly would be as it would have a larger base of users and thus of developers and support companies. Ubuntu is miles better already in so many ways, and it doesn't get a chance to compete properly because it is deprived the benefit of one of its strongest features - that it is free.

The fact that vendors don't preinstall Linux, or don't offer options with no OS, is fine. But there should be a refund offered for Windows because it is a monopoly.

Lars Noodén
April 20th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Vendors don't stay away from desktop Linux because it isn't technologically up to par. They stay away from it, because there isn't an agreement in place with a Linux corporation to preinstall it.
...

Well we have IBM, Red Hat and Canonical as potential companies. At various times Asus, Dell and HP have tried to stand up and offer a choice.

My question is how many years back do AFUL and FFII want the examples from?
My last run-in with Windows on a new computer was in 2001.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html

drewesq
April 20th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Why don't you buy a non-OS machine from here...

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/

Easy!

3Miro
April 20th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Why don't you buy a non-OS machine from here...

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/

Easy!

I don't live in England, although the web-page does look good.

Also, note that price difference for Windows vs no-Windows, it is 60 GBP.

Artemis3
April 20th, 2011, 06:39 PM
"Free"market?, lets see.. It is true, you can freely choose what os to ship with your machine, but also Microsoft can freely choose whom to sell their OEM licenses to. And one of the things they hate the most, is an OEM offering another OS option.

If System76 or ZaReason were to approach Microsoft for oem licensing, they would most likely demand to end that "Ubuntu" offering first. Cases like Dell and Apple are RARE, perhaps because they are big, and even so, Dell hides and covers the very few systems you can buy without Microsoft.

Perhaps if it was mandatory by law, to offer at least one choice (even OSless/FreeDOS); then Microsoft would have no choice but to deal in. And if this law could be extended to embedded devices (such as iThingies), then the true fun begins :)

Grenage
April 21st, 2011, 10:32 AM
If System76 or ZaReason were to approach Microsoft for oem licensing, they would most likely demand to end that "Ubuntu" offering first. Cases like Dell and Apple are RARE, perhaps because they are big, and even so, Dell hides and covers the very few systems you can buy without Microsoft.

Microsoft can't tell suppliers to stop shipping alternative products, it's the supplier's choice, not a conspiracy.


Perhaps if it was mandatory by law, to offer at least one choice (even OSless/FreeDOS); then Microsoft would have no choice but to deal in. And if this law could be extended to embedded devices (such as iThingies), then the true fun begins :)

Is a law that forces suppliers to sell something really the way you want to go?

pony-tail
April 21st, 2011, 11:12 AM
I buy my gear second hand - Usually with a messed up windows install and liscence - I have a box of assorted MS install disks and coa s . I will Put them back on the machines If I sell them on or hand them on to family and friends -- Unless they want linux -- Quite a few dual boot linux and windows .
So my answer is - Yes , many times !

Lars Noodén
April 21st, 2011, 11:57 AM
Microsoft can't tell suppliers to stop shipping alternative products, it's the supplier's choice, not a conspiracy.

They can and they do tell them. However, you're half right: It's not a conspiracy, it's just anti-competitive behavior (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090421111327711).

To acquire the option of buying a computer with Ubuntu, we'll have to push either the OEMs or the legislators (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110415105752529) or both. I really want the option of buying a computer with Ubuntu pre-installed.

fuduntu
April 21st, 2011, 12:59 PM
They can and they do tell them. However, you're half right: It's not a conspiracy, it's just anti-competitive behavior (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090421111327711).

To acquire the option of buying a computer with Ubuntu, we'll have to push either the OEMs or the legislators (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110415105752529) or both. I really want the option of buying a computer with Ubuntu pre-installed.

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-laptops?~ck=anav#facets=80770~0~1791343&p=1

http://www.evot.biz/

http://emperorlinux.com/

http://laclinux.com/en/Start

http://www.system76.com/

http://zareason.com/shop/home.php

defcronyke
August 4th, 2011, 06:53 PM
An interesting conversation. I too have been disappointed by the lack of options when it comes to buying new computers without Windows, or with Linux pre-installed. There are certainly some anti-competitive behaviors going on in the "free market", but I'm not about to whine that the current or preferred Linux options are too expensive.

Lots of things that are immoral are still perfectly legal, and this is a failing on the part of the legal system, not on the companies selling computers who are abiding perfectly by the law.

I am a Linux fanboy who knows that most people still want Windows or OSX. I want everyone to want Linux, but it's never going to happen, so all I can do is start my own business that sells computers which come pre-installed with whatever OS the customer chooses. It doesn't cost too much to start up a computer service and sales business, and I was able to start mine with the help of some government grants.

I install Windows and Linux (dual-boot) by default on every machine, but the customer is free to choose Linux-only (any distro) or no-OS. There is never any charge for the Linux install.

The world needs more startups who offer similar deals to mine for Linux to gain mainstream adoption. So instead of whining, maybe write up a business plan, and look for grants and/or investors.

In the same way that OEMs are guaranteed to get service calls relating to Windows support (because Microsoft requires them to give the support), OEMs who install Linux are guaranteed to get service calls relating to Linux support (because Linux would be new to most of these customers). There is a lot of money to be made in supporting Linux, and as each year passes, most distros continue to get more user-friendly and the Linux desktop becomes a more viable alternative to the other major competitors.

My plan is to prove that I can make a successful business with the aim of helping and educating people, rather than keeping them in the dark and screwing them out of money that they don't want to give away.

Linux is already beginning to crush the competition in the server market, so there's money to be made supporting Linux at the enterprise level also.

I would strongly urge Linux advocates to seek out some Linux certifications (there are some great deals out there right now), and to market their skills to all levels of business, and show companies how they can save money by switching to Linux.

People are so quick to whine, but the change will only happen when YOU go out and spread the word. Not enough businesses selling Linux computers? Become one of them!

3Miro
August 4th, 2011, 07:25 PM
Lots of things that are immoral are still perfectly legal, and this is a failing on the part of the legal system, not on the companies selling computers who are abiding perfectly by the law.

There are antitrust laws established to protect the Free Market. Those laws are the reason why Unix was shut down in the beginning and it was because of those laws that MS (and DOS) got a chance to grow. The problem is that the laws suddenly stopped working when they had to be applied to MS.

Pointing the above isn't whining.



I am a Linux fanboy who knows that most people still want Windows or OSX. I want everyone to want Linux, but it's never going to happen, so all I can do is start my own business that sells computers which come pre-installed with whatever OS the customer chooses. It doesn't cost too much to start up a computer service and sales business, and I was able to start mine with the help of some government grants.

I install Windows and Linux (dual-boot) by default on every machine, but the customer is free to choose Linux-only (any distro) or no-OS. There is never any charge for the Linux install.

The world needs more startups who offer similar deals to mine for Linux to gain mainstream adoption. So instead of whining, maybe write up a business plan, and look for grants and/or investors.

In the same way that OEMs are guaranteed to get service calls relating to Windows support (because Microsoft requires them to give the support), OEMs who install Linux are guaranteed to get service calls relating to Linux support (because Linux would be new to most of these customers). There is a lot of money to be made in supporting Linux, and as each year passes, most distros continue to get more user-friendly and the Linux desktop becomes a more viable alternative to the other major competitors.

My plan is to prove that I can make a successful business with the aim of helping and educating people, rather than keeping them in the dark and screwing them out of money that they don't want to give away.

Is your business on-line or you only have a store? I will be looking at a new machine in the next 3 months and I am definitely getting a Linux only machine.



Linux is already beginning to crush the competition in the server market, so there's money to be made supporting Linux at the enterprise level also.

Linux has already crushed the competition on the servers and supercomputers. It is the less tech savvy business and home users that are still stuck in the MS world.



I would strongly urge Linux advocates to seek out some Linux certifications (there are some great deals out there right now), and to market their skills to all levels of business, and show companies how they can save money by switching to Linux.

People are so quick to whine, but the change will only happen when YOU go out and spread the word. Not enough businesses selling Linux computers? Become one of them!

I will have to disagree on your point of starting a business. I already have a job and I have no interest in getting into a completely different field, just so that I can get the laptop that I need. If I want clean food, I yell at the meat inspectors to do their job, I don't start my own farm. If I want a Linux machine, I yell at the courts the properly apply the laws that already exist to all companies equally, I don't start my own business.

I work with supercomputers, using Windows is not an option for my job. Many of my colleagues use Mac, I prefer Linux, yet getting an affordable machine with Linux pre-installed is rather hard sometimes.

defcronyke
August 4th, 2011, 07:50 PM
I agree with most of your points, but I guess where we differ is that I want everyone else to want Linux, and I am prepared to do as much as I can to get things moving (slowly) in that direction (although it will never fully get there). You just want to be a consumer and have options, and I respect that. I guess I just saw your complaints as being similar to a common mentality that someone else should fix your problems. Maybe you don't have this mentality, but many people do.

I currently operate a local to-your-door computer service and sales business, I do have a website, and I am re-launching my website with an estore in about 3-5 weeks from now. I won't put a link to it on here, but if you look for Computer Service and Sales in Ottawa, ON, Canada, in about a month from now, hopefully the search engine will bring you to my estore.

Not to pick you apart or anything, but maybe if you asked the meat inspector nicely, and explained to them how they aren't doing their job properly and you've been getting sick because of it, maybe they would be a bit more likely to listen to you telling them how they should do their job. Of course they would have to care enough to listen to your feedback in the first place...

3Miro
August 4th, 2011, 08:14 PM
I agree with most of your points, but I guess where we differ is that I want everyone else to want Linux, and I am prepared to do as much as I can to get things moving (slowly) in that direction (although it will never fully get there). You just want to be a consumer and have options, and I respect that. I guess I just saw your complaints as being similar to a common mentality that someone else should fix your problems. Maybe you don't have this mentality, but many people do.

I do try to promote Linux by mentioning it to people and I have installed it for many friends. Those things are reasonable, however, starting an entire business is a huge commitment. I would have to trow away 5 years of graduate school studying Math and spend considerable time learning how to run a business, then I will have to go in a completely different field from the one I am actually good at. I am happy to see that people with skills are selling Linux and I try to help as much as I can, but there is no way that I start a business of my own.



I currently operate a local to-your-door computer service and sales business, I do have a website, and I am re-launching my website with an estore in about 3-5 weeks from now. I won't put a link to it on here, but if you look for Computer Service and Sales in Ottawa, ON, Canada, in about a month from now, hopefully the search engine will bring you to my estore.

Will keep an eye for it.


Not to pick you apart or anything, but maybe if you asked the meat inspector nicely, and explained to them how they aren't doing their job properly and you've been getting sick because of it, maybe they would be a bit more likely to listen to you telling them how they should do their job. Of course they would have to care enough to listen to your feedback in the first place...
The meat inspectors thing was an analogy for the courts not applying the law equally to Unix and MS. However, getting into a discussion about the courts, corporations and so on goes into politics and will be a violation of the CoC.

Bandit
August 4th, 2011, 10:26 PM
It's a free market. Companies can sell their PCs with whatever OS they want. Crying for the law when Desktop Linux is clearly not good enough is ... pathetic.

And please, resist the urge to come at me with any lunatic Microsoft conspiracy theories.

I dont have MS conspiracy theory's. But when you buy a car does it come with a driver? No so why cant be buy a computer without an OS.. They are both consumer products and I see no difference.

FlameReaper
August 5th, 2011, 12:24 AM
One problem with this is that everytime a customer comes to the computer store I work in and see a PC/laptop saying "FreeDOS" in the specs, this is what I always get:

Customer: "FreeDOS? What's that? You mean this PC does not have Windows? BUT WHY?"

Me: "It means you'll have to install it, or another OS by yourself; sir."

Customer: "Oh, okay, I see. So, how much will it cost if I want to install Windows on it?"

See the problem? I don't really care about how unpopular/popular Linux is, probably they too might have heard of it at some point and decided it's too bloody complicated for them to figure out than Macs. Don't get me wrong, I'll be pretty damned happy if they say they want it as how we advertised (comes with FreeDOS/without an OS) because they wanted to install a <name a Linux distribution here> into it, and will run to get the stock and get everything done excitedly. But so far, no customer of that kind ever came by...

... and we only let customers choose Windows if they want to install something on it. If they choose Linux we will have to tell the customer to do it on their own, because we don't take guarantees on whether it'll work completely perfectly on it, and manufacturers don't really let warranties be issued because of software/hardware incompatibility problems.

Hey, on the funnier side, we advertise these PCs/laptops with Windows installed in it, although we never activate it (we have a method of resetting the activation period, but hush!) just so to tell customers "This laptop does not come with Windows."

el_koraco
August 5th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Why does FreeDOS get installed? I've never been able to figure that out. Is it a super fast install or what?

zealibib slaughter
August 5th, 2011, 12:59 AM
And please, resist the urge to come at me with any lunatic Microsoft conspiracy theories.

Just google black helicopters :)

FlameReaper
August 5th, 2011, 01:10 AM
Why does FreeDOS get installed? I've never been able to figure that out. Is it a super fast install or what?

That... Gee, I wonder why the manufacturer does! As I read on about this thing (which I actually have zero knowledge on apart from that it's a "free version of MS-DOS"), some hardware manufacturers actually need it to be there for reasons such as for ASUS: "ASUS uses FreeDOS to let users boot their motherboard driver CDs to create the SATA device driver disk (needed for Windows versions before XP SP2)."

But in the first place, it's not viewed as something of a choice for most users in my region to keep. And when they do for some magically odd reason they'll always ask for Windows instead, when we have much more comparable hardware in terms of specs/price that already came with Windows for them to choose from.

The reason is because they mainly look at the prices. Prices are a huge attraction/"stay away" factor, and of course when they start to doubt differences between it and another product with Windows already in it, we have to say why.

... Well, it's like having a PC which runs LFS with nothing else on it.

There are dealers here who sold netbooks with mainly Ubuntu or Linux Mint in it. The next time I came around they sell it no more. Probably a no-go I suppose.

el_koraco
August 5th, 2011, 01:38 PM
That... Gee, I wonder why the manufacturer does! As I read on about this thing (which I actually have zero knowledge on apart from that it's a "free version of MS-DOS"), some hardware manufacturers actually need it to be there for reasons such as for ASUS: "ASUS uses FreeDOS to let users boot their motherboard driver CDs to create the SATA device driver disk (needed for Windows versions before XP SP2)."


Yup, that's true, completely forgot about it. It can probably be used to flash the BIOS as well. Legacy issues. My all time favorite came with my current machine - Linpus Linux, but a CLI only install. And you get a CD with a manual, lol. I can just imagine someone mounting the CD and reading the manual, when they can install Fedora in less time.