PDA

View Full Version : Should bundling OSs with computer hardware be banned?



Pages : [1] 2

Sporkman
September 24th, 2007, 06:16 PM
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/09/24/0012213.shtml



An influential Brussels think tank is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The Globalisation Institute's submission to the Commission (http://www.globalisation.eu/briefings/competition-policy/unbundling-microsoft-windows-200709231241/) says that bundling 'is not in the public interest' and that the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.' It says the Microsoft tax is a burden on EU businesses: the price of operating systems would be lower in a competitive market. This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power.

treis
September 24th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Of course not. Installing the OS is a pain in the rear, and unnecessary for the end user.

derekr44
September 24th, 2007, 06:18 PM
And no mention of Mac...

Sporkman
September 24th, 2007, 06:19 PM
Of course not. Installing the OS is a pain in the rear, and unnecessary for the end user.

I'd assume vendors would still pre-install the OS, except they'd be compelled to offer a choice of OS...

LaRoza
September 24th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Yes:

* U3
* Windows
* Junkware (trial versions)

these should be banned unless explicitly desired.

vambo
September 24th, 2007, 06:22 PM
I agree with this.

Makes me feel rather proud to be part of the EU - someone at last is at least trying to do something about that lot of wannabe Yakuza.

FuturePilot
September 24th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Yes:

* U3
* Windows
* Junkware (trial versions)

these should be banned unless explicitly desired.

:lolflag:
Yes
Portable Apps >>> U3

I don't think bundling the OS with the hardware should be banned, I think there should be more choices, not just Windows.

Sporkman
September 24th, 2007, 06:23 PM
...that lot of wannabe Yakuza.

Heh - given the relative power & money flows, I'd think the Yakuza are wannabe MS. ;)

vambo
September 24th, 2007, 06:26 PM
You might well be right, but I wouldn't want to argue it with them.8-[

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 06:30 PM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

mysticrider92
September 24th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Many users don't seem to be able to pop in the recovery disks and reboot the computer, how do you expect everyone to be able to actually install Windows? I am not trying to be rude or anything, but from working at a computer repair shop, I can say that this would not work for the majority of computer users.

I do think that trial software should not be allowed, I can't stand that stuff...

vambo
September 24th, 2007, 06:32 PM
The point is that with a monopoly you don't have any choice. Quite antithetical to what Linux stands for.

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 06:37 PM
The point is that with a monopoly you don't have any choice. Quite antithetical to what Linux stands for.

Hey, guess what? I own a Dell. Yeah! IT CAME WITH WINDOWS! HOOORAY. My parents were ever so happy, with an operating system they've known for most of their computer related days. An operating system, which, effortlessly, allows them to browse the Internet, share pictures, and talk to people.

But hey, the little voice in my head is nagging.

"Do you want to give Linux a shot? Once I set it up it can do the same things you're used to."

"Okay."

Holy crap, a choice!

But guess what? It turns out Linux didn't work out for them. It wasn't quite what they were used to so they went back. Choice.

And now, Dell even offers Linux with your PC purchases, and you can return the COA to the vendors and get a refund.

...what's the problem?

Oh, and before I forget, read this carefully: Microsoft is not a monopoly. You might want to look up the definition of the words you use.

mysticrider92
September 24th, 2007, 06:38 PM
The point is that with a monopoly you don't have any choice. Quite antithetical to what Linux stands for.

So you are saying they should leave it entirely up to the customer as to whether or not they want MS products? Like forcing companies to offer Linux (or other OS) as an option?

I would like to see more companies offering no-os or Linux computers, but I can't see where the idea would work as well for the companies.

reyfer
September 24th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Many users don't seem to be able to pop in the recovery disks and reboot the computer, how do you expect everyone to be able to actually install Windows? I am not trying to be rude or anything, but from working at a computer repair shop, I can say that this would not work for the majority of computer users.

I do think that trial software should not be allowed, I can't stand that stuff...

You don't get it. The point here is, you should be given the choice of what OS you want on your machine and the vendor should install it for you before you get the machine to your place. As it is now, you pay for your machine AND Windows, even if you don't want Windows (yes, you're paying for the Windows copy on your machine even if ~LoKe seems to think you don't; if I'm wrong, why is there a mechanism to get refunded for the Windows license?). An a nice side effect to this would be that vendors would have to make their hardware more compatible with the choices people will have the possibility of making.

M$LOL
September 24th, 2007, 06:40 PM
Yes:

* U3
* Windows
* Junkware (trial versions)

these should be banned unless explicitly desired.

Why should Windows be banned?

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 06:43 PM
You don't get it. The point here is, you should be given the choice of what OS you want on your machine and the vendor should install it for you before you get the machine to your place. As it is now, you pay for your machine AND Windows, even if you don't want Windows (yes, you're paying for the Windows copy on your machine even if ~LoKe seems to think you don't; if I'm wrong, why is there a mechanism to get refunded for the Windows license?). An a nice side effect to this would be that vendors would have to make their hardware more compatible with the choices people will have the possibility of making.

Problem (http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/)?

phrostbyte
September 24th, 2007, 06:46 PM
This is a really badly structured poll. I think to unbundle OSes will be unpopular with a lot of people but what really need is simply a choice as a customer to unbundle the OS.

I am personally sick of every computer in virtually any retail store being bundled with Windows or Mac OS X. I shouldn't have to pay for software I don't use, made by a company that has been convicted of cartel behavior. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a refund either.

Every computer should have a "no-OS" option at point of sale, or the ability to quickly and easily receive a refund on the Windows operating system as required by the Microsoft EULA.

Sporkman
September 24th, 2007, 06:46 PM
I was going to originally vote "yes", but after thinking about it while wiping the angry spittle off my screen from one of the posters here, I decided I'd scale that back to forcing the vendor to allow the consumer to choose not to have the OS installed at the POS & not be charged for the OS, nor suffer any warranty / support penalties.

p_quarles
September 24th, 2007, 06:47 PM
The point is that with a monopoly you don't have any choice. Quite antithetical to what Linux stands for.
MS does have a (near-)monopoly, which is certainly anti-competitive, but this isn't the right kind of fix. The better idea would be for the US DoJ to get around to finally breaking the company up, as was done with the old telephone and oil monopolies here.

But you can't punish the customer for one corporation's monopoly. I mean, imagine if we banned bundling CPUs simply because Intel has a near-monopoly. This would create a real economic hardship for the millions of users who rely on computers but haven't the werewithal to put one together themselves.

Break MS into hardware, OS, and accessory software divisions. Then rely on OEMs to put together an integrated environment for non-technical users. This would lead to greater choice and greater innovation and competition.

Sporkman
September 24th, 2007, 06:47 PM
This is a really badly structured poll. I think to unbundle OSes will be unpopular with a lot of people but what really need is simply a choice as a customer to unbundle the OS.

I am personally sick of every computer in virtually any retail store being bundled with Windows or Mac OS X. I shouldn't have to pay for software I don't use, made by a company that has been convicted of cartel behavior. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a refund either.

Every computer should have a "no-OS" option at point of sale, or the ability to quickly and easily receive a refund on the Windows operating system as required by the Microsoft EULA.

Agreed! That would go in the "Sort of" category.

notwen
September 24th, 2007, 06:48 PM
Vendors should be allowed to do whatever with their hardware, it's up to the consumer to show the vendor what they prefer and hope the vendor follows suit. =]

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Vendors should be allowed to do whatever with their hardware, it's up to the consumer to show the vendor what they prefer and hope the vendor follows suit. =]

It worked with Dell. But a lot of people don't seem to realize this.

n3tfury
September 24th, 2007, 06:52 PM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

this is the best post i've read since joining this forum.

notwen
September 24th, 2007, 06:53 PM
It worked with Dell. But a lot of people don't seem to realize this.

And I was one of the brave to acquire one of these new pre-loaded Dellbuntus. =p Very satisfied so far, going on 2 months now.

samb0057
September 24th, 2007, 07:01 PM
There are two sides to this. Bundling is good for people who dont know anything about computers, they shouldn't have to install an os from scratch.

However bundling is currently a bad thing, because it has potential to be bad when it is used to the advantage of a monopoly like microsoft.

If linux were the dominant os, bundling would be fine. customers would have numerous choices as linux oses probably wouldnt fight as hard as microsoft to keep other oses away. There would probably even be a no os option.

They have a very good point also, think of how much microsoft and windows have limited what people could do with their computers. It's interesting to think of the different paths the computer industry might have taken if linux had been the dominant os for the last 10 years.

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 07:04 PM
If linux were the dominant os, bundling would be fine. customers would have numerous choices as linux oses probably wouldnt fight as hard as microsoft to keep other oses away. There would probably even be a no os option.

So you're saying they could bundle with one single linux distribution, and leave the rest in the dust along with windows?

Remember, bundling in this sense means one and only one. The topic that we seem to be discussing is the lack of a choice (which doesn't exist, by the way).

Do you not think people will bitch and complain when they get Fedora instead of Ubuntu, or vise-versa? Will my parents not complain that they got "some stupid program that doesn't work" instead of Windows?

samb0057
September 24th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Is this really something that could go through? I don't see it happening, as bundling software with pcs has been the standard for years and years.

samb0057
September 24th, 2007, 07:20 PM
So you're saying they could bundle with one single linux distribution, and leave the rest in the dust along with windows?

Remember, bundling in this sense means one and only one. The topic that we seem to be discussing is the lack of a choice (which doesn't exist, by the way).

Do you not think people will bitch and complain when they get Fedora instead of Ubuntu, or vise-versa? Will my parents not complain that they got "some stupid program that doesn't work" instead of Windows?

No, what i mean is that while microsoft fights as hard as possible to have windows and only windows bundled with pcs, linux distros could co-exist, and manufacturers would probably offer the choice of many different linux distros.

happysmileman
September 24th, 2007, 07:46 PM
You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice. and you're free to un-install it

Great, large companies making my decisions for me, and trying to not let me hear about alternatives.
Also considering installing Linux will void your warranty on most computers they don't let you have a choice, and if you do make a choice, they refuse to support anything that goes wrong with hardware based on your software preferences.



Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

You can't complain about the ignorance of users here and then claim Windows is free, it's a lot cheaper when bundled, but still costs money, any shop that says it's free is blatantly lying to get sales.



Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Evidently you don't give a damn about it, but most people who use it do!
You could always rephrase that as "How many people have ever heard of Linux?", or "How many people have actually made a knowledgable choice about what OS to use?"



Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

No-one except shops that bad-mouth it, and the fact that no-one has ever mentioned it to them. I have 2 friends who have installed Ubuntu, both were very capable of it and found it easy, as well as liking it (though they never replaced Windows), neither of them would've even heard about it if I didn't give them a CD.
So those capable enough to know how to install Linux DON'T install Linux unless told to, and most of them don't know anyone who uses it so never will.



Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.
So is supporting monopolies and a lack of choice, but I suppose when you're this selective about the facts you use that doesn't matter?

LaRoza
September 24th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Why should Windows be banned?

...from preinstallation.

When buying a computer, I feel one should look at the hardware, then look at the software. Even if the vendor does the installation, software should not be bundled with the hardware.

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want, and why should I pay even more for not getting it?

notwen
September 24th, 2007, 07:55 PM
...from preinstallation.

When buying a computer, I feel one should look at the hardware, then look at the software. Even if the vendor does the installation, software should not be bundled with the hardware.

Why should I have to pay for something I don't want, and why should I pay even more for not getting it?

No one is forcing you to purchase this brand spankin new PC conveniently pre-loaded w/ Windows.

Zeroangel
September 24th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Bunding is OK, but only if the consumer has the choice to reject the preinstalled OS.

The reason for this is that most people, especially non-geeks, value their time enough to expect everything to *just work*. Bundling OSes adds convenience, and everything 'just works'.

Ideally, the OEM would offer the choice of having the OS preinstalled by default, but give the consumer a chance to opt out of the preinstallation and save the costs that the preinstallation would otherwise add to the cost of the unit.

I think that what should happen, is that the consumer purchases the computer, and informs the salesperson whether or not he wants to go with the windows preinstallation, if he does want it to be installed, the technician simply needs decompress the OS disk image from DVD to hard-drive unattended, and is finished within 30 minutes or so. Unused licences would simply be returned to the manufacturer and costs recovered.

The manufacturer/OEM would also have the option of distributing different disk images, for example Mandriva/SUSE with a year's subscription, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, Ubuntu, or any other given installation.

This would be ideal.

Officer Dibble
September 24th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Microsoft did a great job of mothering people into computing when other vendors couldn't/didn't. Society has made great leaps and bounds technologically because of Microsoft's past contribution - people buy easy technology, technology earns more lolly and advances, etc.

However, Microsoft's mothering in this time of technological maturing is now stifling rather than progressing advancement.

Computers should be supplied with an OS preinstalled - but there does need to be a choice, and it would be good marketing on the part of the computer vendor to give that choice to the customer. Some people like to move into homes that are already furnished, others want to use their own furnishings, that's society today.

I suppose an interesting poll would be to ask whether hardware or software should lead development and market growth? :-k

an93l
September 24th, 2007, 08:19 PM
the vendors should choose what OS to bundle with the system. this gives us the choice to what vendor to buy from. the ultimate choice is to build it yourself or go to a company that will custom build a PC for you if you can't do it yourself. we have all the choice in the world.

AbredPeytr
September 24th, 2007, 08:29 PM
I'd assume vendors would still pre-install the OS, except they'd be compelled to offer a choice of OS...

Don't assume anything. The choice should be offered, but the way the European bureaucracy works, it would not be assured that a choice would be offered.

It would be nice if more hardware venders offered a choice of OS when you buy a new computer. it would be nice if this didn't have to be legislated.

I shudder to think of my parents buying a computer without an OS installed and then trying to install one on their own. There would be a crater at the end of the day.

igknighted
September 24th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Most people are just not capable of installing an OS. It's sad, but its true. They need to just say "give me that one" and have a computer to use as they need.

That said, a company should not be able to say "You cannot buy that computer unless you buy that OS with it", or "You cannot buy that OS unless you buy that hardware to go with it". The major OEMs (Dell, HP, etc.) are all guilty of #1, while apple is of course guilty of #2. Both of these activities should be (in the least) restricted.

t0p
September 24th, 2007, 08:31 PM
There are too many laws as it is. And bundling isn't bad - what's rotten is the way Microsoft goes about bundling - the arm-twisting, the blackmail... Microsoft telling OEMs that they are not allowed to offer OSes other than Windows... Microsoft insisting that every sale of a computer == a sale of Windows.

I'll bet that a lot of what Microsoft gets up to is illegal right now, under current legislation. No need to create new laws to deal with the fscks.

Officer Dibble
September 24th, 2007, 08:31 PM
the vendors should choose what OS to bundle with the system. this gives us the choice to what vendor to buy from. the ultimate choice is to build it yourself or go to a company that will custom build a PC for you if you can't do it yourself. we have all the choice in the world.

This is one of the reasons Microsoft has had such a vice like grip on the OS and software markets over the past many years. The financial leverage should come from the customer not the "partner", otherwise you get the likes of monopolies, and price fixing etc...

Midwest-Linux
September 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Consumers should have the choice of buying a new computer with or without Windows. If a consumer buying a new computer wishes to only use Linux and not Windows, then the Windows OS should be wiped clean and the consumer saves the corresponding money.

Perhaps another solution would be is to offer two or three operating systems already installed with a new computer. If that can't work, ship the computer with no OS installed. But include the OS discs, so the consumer can install it themselves. If they wanted windows, they would pay MS directly.

an93l
September 24th, 2007, 08:37 PM
the financial leverage does come from the customer, in that we choose what to buy and more importantly what not to buy. yes price fixing and monopolies will exist but putting down legislation to stop bundeling software will not stop it just make it harder.

Lord Illidan
September 24th, 2007, 08:40 PM
Bundling is good. It's the choices that are at fault. I believe a computer vendor should offer a choice between Windows and Linux, and at least, support Linux if the customer installs it himself.

The really bad behaviour is not just bundling with windows, it is disallowing the customer to just buy a pc without Windows installed.

SunnyRabbiera
September 24th, 2007, 08:43 PM
For me this might be a bad idea, as the average user really doesnt know how to install a OS.
This is why XP is actually kind of good in one small respect, as you do have to toy with it to actually get it to work.
This will get the newb more friendly with the way the OS works, XP is definitely a hands on experience when concerning actually getting the thing running in the first place.
But yeh having a choice is a good idea, if it were possible for the vendors out there to offer both windows and linux then let them do it...

floke
September 24th, 2007, 08:52 PM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

I agree.


It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you,

There you go. Ever heard of the refund option?


read this carefully: Microsoft is not a monopoly. You might want to look up the definition of the words you use.

Maybe the US DoJ don't have a dictionary.

insane_alien
September 24th, 2007, 09:06 PM
i voted for partially, it would be unfair to novices to get a computer that just displays a blank screen on the first start.

what i'd like to see is computers sold with a choice of operating system to be preinstalled on purchase(not just a choice between xp or vista, but whatever will run on the hardware, also a choice to get a clean disk).

this will encourage OS producers to make high quality software so that their operating system gets used more often. who knows, MS might actually make something good.

aks44
September 24th, 2007, 09:14 PM
For me this might be a bad idea, as the average user really doesnt know how to install a OS.

That's the very reason why I'd ban OS preinstallation altogether. Good riddance... :mrgreen:

akiratheoni
September 24th, 2007, 09:17 PM
As much as I don't like Windows, getting completely rid of bundled systems is I think too far. It's the vendor's choice to bundle Windows; Microsoft isn't forcing them to. Obviously Windows is the choice of most people, so telling them that Windows doesn't come with the system might be off-putting.

~LoKe
September 24th, 2007, 09:17 PM
Great, large companies making my decisions for me, and trying to not let me hear about alternatives.
Also considering installing Linux will void your warranty on most computers they don't let you have a choice, and if you do make a choice, they refuse to support anything that goes wrong with hardware based on your software preferences.
I've posted a list of several manufactures that will sell you a computer with no OS, or Linux pre-installed. No one is forcing you to buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, I'm just telling you why it's acceptable.


You can't complain about the ignorance of users here and then claim Windows is free, it's a lot cheaper when bundled, but still costs money, any shop that says it's free is blatantly lying to get sales.
I never said Windows was free, I said it'll cost the same. A manufacture will make their money regardless of what they send you. If you're paying a $50 premium to get Windows, you're going to pay a $50 premium for Ubuntu. Either way, the cost is the same. At least this way, you have two operating systems for the price of one. Sounds like a bargain to me.


Evidently you don't give a damn about it, but most people who use it do!
You could always rephrase that as "How many people have ever heard of Linux?", or "How many people have actually made a knowledgable choice about what OS to use?"
Sure as hell I give a damn. I've completely switched to Linux for the past two years now. But that's the simple truth: the majority of buyers don't give a damn about Linux and just want a computer that works. That's what I hear when I suggest someone put one together themselves, they say, "no, I want something that just works".


No-one except shops that bad-mouth it, and the fact that no-one has ever mentioned it to them. I have 2 friends who have installed Ubuntu, both were very capable of it and found it easy, as well as liking it (though they never replaced Windows), neither of them would've even heard about it if I didn't give them a CD.
So those capable enough to know how to install Linux DON'T install Linux unless told to, and most of them don't know anyone who uses it so never will.
I don't tell anyone to do anything. I suggest it. And since no one will make the switch to Linux and ditch Windows immediately, it's ignorant to say that they shouldn't get Windows to begin with.


So is supporting monopolies and a lack of choice, but I suppose when you're this selective about the facts you use that doesn't matter?

I've yet to see any facts come from you. I don't support Microsoft, I just support vendors in their decision, and defend their reasoning for it.

p_quarles
September 24th, 2007, 09:18 PM
That's the very reason why I'd ban OS preinstallation altogether. Good riddance... :mrgreen:
That kind of elitism is so counterproductive. Essentially, you're saying that anyone who doesn't have the knowledge/time/inclination to figure out how to set up a computer from scratch shouldn't be granted the benefits of owning and using one. Let's hope I was just missing the sarcasm in that post.

Lord Illidan
September 24th, 2007, 09:18 PM
Making the average OS more easy to install is also a good option, too. Both for Linux and Windows. I've never used a Mac so I can't comment on it.

But, yes, if there's a real disadvantage/advantage of Windows, it's that users have no idea what's going on inside their computer.

In a way, this is good because they just need to look at it as an appliance, just to go from A to B. But in a way it's bad, as they have absolutely no idea how to step out of Windows, or fix any problems.

aks44
September 24th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Let's hope I was just missing the sarcasm in that post.

Indeed, looks like you missed it. :p

SunnyRabbiera
September 24th, 2007, 09:21 PM
That's the very reason why I'd ban OS preinstallation altogether. Good riddance... :mrgreen:

but you cant deny that at one time we were all a "average user" at one point in our lives... even I was a average user once upon a time.
I am still an average user, I just know a lot more about computers now then I have before, the difference of course from me when I first started using a computer and me now is that now I am a linux user.
I still consider myself an average user as I do some average things... check email, go on the net, play games (yes linux ones) and I also write too...
what do you have to be a IT with a degree from Harvard to use a computer or something?
Your comment sounds elitist.

public_void
September 24th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I have no problem with a Windows being pre-loaded on a PC. However I do not like the bundling of extra software that has limited use e.g. Trial software, or cut down software that is not the full edition. Or a really annoyance, modems configured to use a certain ISP. With my last bought computer I had mess with the registry to allow me to use my existing ISP.

I'd like a 3rd or 4th option of buying a computer with Windows at a lower price and do the install myself, or have just have a plain Windows install. I realise this is not a solution for novices, but it provides a greater degree of freedom.

p_quarles
September 24th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Indeed, looks like you missed it. :p
My bad. Sorry.:oops:

FurryNemesis
September 24th, 2007, 09:26 PM
I agree with Public Void, to an extent. But a No-OS option at point of sale would be very welcome.

aks44
September 24th, 2007, 09:35 PM
That kind of elitism is so counterproductive.

Your comment sounds elitist.

FWIW I make a living of Windows programming... ;)

(granted, for businesses, but anyway, how would I eat without it?)




My bad. Sorry.:oops:

No problem, it was really meant to *sound* elitist anyway. :p I just thought people would get it.

t0p
September 24th, 2007, 09:43 PM
I agree with Public Void, to an extent. But a No-OS option at point of sale would be very welcome.

Yes to a No-OS option!

The customer should be given a choice: computer with OS installed - for people who don't feel experienced or confident enough to do it themselves; and given a choice of OSes to have installed, priced accordingly - ie a box with Vista pre-installed will cost more than one that comes with Ubuntu - or maybe you can buy support for your Ubuntu-loaded PC...

Then, for a lower price, you get a computer and installation disk/disks. You do the install yourself, and pay less accordingly.

And the cheapest option: a "bare bones" PC - just the box, you gotta get the OS for it yourself. This option will probably be taken up by experienced users only. And a good proportion of those users will go for Linux. Even if User X couldn't care less about "Free as in Freedom", he's sure gonna be attracted by the "free as in beer" angle. Especially when confronted with the price of a Vista DVD.

PatrickMay16
September 24th, 2007, 10:30 PM
Forcing the buyer to install the OS themselves is ridiculous, but instead if the sellers make it possible to order the computer with or without an OS (as the customer chooses), that's much better.

happysmileman
September 24th, 2007, 10:36 PM
Forcing the buyer to install the OS themselves is ridiculous, but instead if the sellers make it possible to order the computer with or without an OS (as the customer chooses), that's much better.

No-one here seems to want that... i think three things should happen.

1) It must be made apparent that Windows is neither free with a computer(price without Vista should be available) or the only option(other choices must be offered)
2) User can ask for a computer with linux on it and get it cheaper than Windows (though maybe the seller can pocket some extra along with a promise of support).
3) Computers must be available without any OS, and these must be the cheapest (they could be same price as Linux PC if the seller doesn't charge for the Linux of course, but they probably will to pocket the extra few €)

It should not be enforced that Linux has to be advertised (a shop can choose to only advertise Windows machines) but they must be available in all 3 types, and the price without an OS should be given as well as price with Windows (and, upon request, price of linux computer)

EDIT: BSD and all could be included as well, but since they aren't popular I don't think it should be enforced, this provides an alternative that the average user can use and may want, Mac maybe, but not sure if you can get that working well on a regular PC so didn't include it

n3tfury
September 24th, 2007, 10:45 PM
But, yes, if there's a real disadvantage/advantage of Windows, it's that users have no idea what's going on inside their computer.

In a way, this is good because they just need to look at it as an appliance, just to go from A to B. But in a way it's bad, as they have absolutely no idea how to step out of Windows, or fix any problems.

not sure what you're on about here. your avg user won't have an idea what's "going on inside their computer" in linux or OSX either. and? they don't want to fix problems. they just want it to work.


Indeed, looks like you missed it. :p

i didn't find it sarcastic at all and i'm the king of sarcasm. oh wait...

MOST people on this planet do NOT want to install an OS on their PC, so really this poll is rubbish.

bobbocanfly
September 24th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Whatever happens, the OEM Vendors would get away with it by sticking a customised DVD with Windows on it that autoinstalls on first boot. Cant do nothing to stop them there.

I believe that a computers hardware and its software are two different things and should not be bought/decided upon together. Like users that ask "Which distro is better" it all depends on what you are going to use a computer for. This bundling stuff stops that. To the people that cant install an OS. If you cant do that, should you really be using a computer? Sounds harsh i know but if you cant click next 6 or 7 times and give a root password and a hostname, how are you going to survive a Trojan or Virus attack?

coggins
September 25th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Forget OS bundling, the real evil is those monopolistic car manufacturers who insist on installing their own proprietary steering wheel on every single car they sell! What if I want a sports steering wheel? Why should I have to pay for that ugly over-sized generic garbage, when I'm only going to replace it anyway?

But seriously, in my experience most small independent computer stores list Windows as an option (with a cost), even on their standard systems. Maybe it's different in other parts of the world. Surely if we're about 'free choice' as well as just 'free beer', then we should give our business to these independent stores where practicable, rather than complaining about the way department stores and big online retailers sell computers to the majority of users, who just want to plug the thing in and steal content/buy ******/watch porn already!

Rupertronco
September 25th, 2007, 12:38 AM
To address a point I haven't seen touched on (I didn't read every post so my apologies if it's redundant):

Most OEMs offer all-around support for their products. This includes the operating system. Forcing OEMs to offer multiple operating systems increases the costs of them doing business everywhere. Money is the deciding factor here people, and if companies have more costs to incurr they're not going to just sit back and take it, they're going to cut costs where it really hurts people. (Axing jobs, slacking on overall service, etc).

I think the real problem here lies in who is making the decision. If the majority of customers demanded this service, manufacturers would be compelled to comply with the demands. I think it should be up to the customers, and the corporation, not governments that make these decisions. I certainly don't want to get into a political debate, it just seems to me that the wrong people are pointing the finger here.

p_quarles
September 25th, 2007, 12:41 AM
+1 for Rupertronco's post.

Another point that hasn't been addressed:

Banning the bundling of PCs and OSes would not kill Microsoft. It would, however, destroy the current business plan of its main desktop competitor.

Sporkman
September 25th, 2007, 12:44 AM
MOST people on this planet do NOT want to install an OS on their PC, so really this poll is rubbish.

Are you sure you're interpreting the poll correctly?

Rupertronco
September 25th, 2007, 12:45 AM
Are you sure you're interpreting the poll correctly?

This is a linux forum. The poll here, is by no means is a satisfactory sampling of all computer users.

Are you interpreting the poll correctly?

Take a statistics class.

ryno519
September 25th, 2007, 12:47 AM
I fail to see how this would be productive just as Ubuntu is making its way to being preinstalled on the machines of more than one major vendor.

Rupertronco
September 25th, 2007, 12:52 AM
EDIT: BSD and all could be included as well, but since they aren't popular I don't think it should be enforced, this provides an alternative that the average user can use and may want, Mac maybe, but not sure if you can get that working well on a regular PC so didn't include it

So now only popular operating systems should be included as choices? Who gets to decide which are "popular" enough to be included? Maybe they should appoint you as the person who gets to make that decision.

More operating system choices mean more support costs for companies and worse service.

Linux is spectacular, it's growing, I love it, but I think some people need to wake up to a reality here. We're a very small minority. (linux desktop users) and this choice you're proposing would probably confuse more people than it would help.

It's easy to demand something like this when the only perspective you're looking from is supported by your own beliefs. A little too convenient if you ask me.

Sporkman
September 25th, 2007, 01:28 AM
This is a linux forum. The poll here, is by no means is a satisfactory sampling of all computer users.

Are you interpreting the poll correctly?

Take a statistics class.

Thanks for the tip, and I didn't realize your complaint was due to the non-scientific nature of the poll. :lol:

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 01:45 AM
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/09/24/0012213.shtml

Although it might amuse me slightly, I think the stigma of Linux being hard to install is something long gone at this point...

I think bundling is okay, tying no. Should I be able to go to any OEM and buy a PC without an OS. Yes, that would be fantastic.

Ultimately the Personal Computer is hardware, the OS is something that (normally) just sits on the hard drive (although it's important!.)

If someone wants Windows XP or Vista, Ubuntu or Fedora or [insert your favorite Distro here] or other OS, the OEM should be allowed to include it pre-installed (hopefully without voleware/spyware, or at least adding it, since certain OS require a "phone home" to be fully functional...)

I'm not saying OEMs should be forced to offer and support a dozen OS's. However, no one should be forced to buy a machine with Windows on it (or heck Linux too).

Rupertronco
September 25th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Nobody is forced to buy a computer with a particular operating system installed. If you'd like an Apple laptop, you're going to get OSX. If you don't want OSX, pick another brand. Your choice lies in the fact that you can select what manufacturer you give your hard-earned money to. If the manufacturer you select only installs one OS you have the obvious choice of selecting another. Governments forcing companies to change their business is not the right action.

lisati
September 25th, 2007, 02:01 AM
Each of us has to start somewhere.....how many among us would have had the knowledge to install a suitable OS when we got our first computers? There should be an option to buy a computer bundled with at least an OS on it, otherwise noobs wouldn't have a usable computer.

eph1973
September 25th, 2007, 02:16 AM
I voted partially, explain, and here is my explanation:

I feel it should be a customer option to bundle an OS. Apparently, you have a hard time finding a system with no OS, or you pay more for it, as it is "custom". They should not bundle any OS with any system, however, if the customer so chooses (even under the pressure of an up sell), he or she could get an OS bundled with their computer, for a nominal fee. I do not know why this is not the current practice, as it seems to give the customer the widest range of choice, but I guess we (as the customer) are too stupid to make our own decisions, and we should leave such decisions up to major corporations. Because, after all, when your company gets so big, who even gives a whit about the customer? There's another 50 million customers out there beating your door down to buy your product.
<End rant>

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 02:20 AM
Nobody is forced to buy a computer with a particular operating system installed. If you'd like an Apple laptop, you're going to get OSX. If you don't want OSX, pick another brand. Your choice lies in the fact that you can select what manufacturer you give your hard-earned money to. If the manufacturer you select only installs one OS you have the obvious choice of selecting another. Governments forcing companies to change their business is not the right action.

The thing is the choice was severely limited. So Apple Macs include their own OS, it's been like that since their inception. For consumers, buying a generic PC or laptop meant you have to have Windows on it. MS was abusing it's position, and can make or break OEMs in terms of licensing costs.

Things have changed nowadays and frankly it's nice that I can find an OEM that supports my OS of choice, and as such I do buy from them. What about other people though? I guess they'll have to build their desktop or laptop (does anyone here do this?) themselves... Or they'll do what I did, get the machine, and just wipe whatever was on their with their OS of choice. Some manage to get a refund though, which is nice and frankly fair.

Also these agreements MS has with OEMs are secret, however, I challenge anyone, to find an OEM anywhere, that offers Windows + some other choice, and doesn't say something along the lines of "This company recommends Windows XP or Vista"

Have you ever wondered why no one bundles dual-boot machines? One company tried, with BeOS, for 3 manufactures. However after a visit from SOMEONE, it's a no go. This type of behavior is unacceptable, it doesn't benefit the consumer. Just paying fines doesn't solve it.

http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595-6153904.html

Lastly, there is no need to tie an OS to PC. I don't think it should be banned, but there should be a choice, so there can't be bullying like a certain company does/did.

eph1973
September 25th, 2007, 02:30 AM
MS does have a (near-)monopoly, which is certainly anti-competitive, but this isn't the right kind of fix. The better idea would be for the US DoJ to get around to finally breaking the company up, as was done with the old telephone and oil monopolies here.

First of all, a small disclaimer:
I am not making any sort of political statement here, one way or the other, just an observation.

It seems that nowadays, in today's global economy, due to the size of the market, corporations who would have been considered monopolies (like AT&T) in the 1970's or 80's, are not considered so today. Even though they do the same things that Ma Bell did back in the day. Interesting that you mentioned AT&T, here's a bit of humorous irony concerning that:

http://colbertondemand.com/videos/The_Colbert_Report/The_new_ATandT

p_quarles
September 25th, 2007, 02:47 AM
First of all, a small disclaimer:
I am not making any sort of political statement here, one way or the other, just an observation.

It seems that nowadays, in today's global economy, due to the size of the market, corporations who would have been considered monopolies (like AT&T) in the 1970's or 80's, are not considered so today. Even though they do the same things that Ma Bell did back in the day. Interesting that you mentioned AT&T, here's a bit of humorous irony concerning that:

http://colbertondemand.com/videos/The_Colbert_Report/The_new_ATandT
:lolflag:
Yeah, I'm aware of the situation, given that I started out buying broadband from Ameritech, and now pay my bills to "The new AT&T" (to SBC for a bit in between).

Antitrust actions don't last forever, simply because large corporations will always have a disproportionate influence on the governments of free market nations. I still think it's a good idea to break them up when they get too big.

Zeroangel
September 25th, 2007, 03:14 AM
So now only popular operating systems should be included as choices? Who gets to decide which are "popular" enough to be included? Maybe they should appoint you as the person who gets to make that decision.

More operating system choices mean more support costs for companies and worse service.

Linux is spectacular, it's growing, I love it, but I think some people need to wake up to a reality here. We're a very small minority. (linux desktop users) and this choice you're proposing would probably confuse more people than it would help.

It's easy to demand something like this when the only perspective you're looking from is supported by your own beliefs. A little too convenient if you ask me.Thats what the research/testing department is for. ;) Installing Ubuntu just because its more popular would be like installing Windows 98 in the year 2000 because it's still the most popular.

While your points make a little bit of sense, I have to disagree with this one. Dell, for example, is one PC manufacturer which must charge on the Ubuntu machines because they are expected to provide support for that, and thus train additional staff to handle the OS, subtract bundling deals, and handle the other overheads.

If one were to include a distro like Mandriva or SUSE, or even outsource the tech duties to the distro developers themselves you save money, and have people that can support your product. The entire business model of many Linux related companies is based on technical support or R&D to improve compatibility. Look at Canonical for example, they offer the OS for free, but make money from technical support. If you had OEMs outsource their tech support duties to Canonical themselves for example, they dont have to worry about having such a huge overhead on maintaining the different OS's that they offer, all they would have to do is make sure that their hardware works with their OSes of choice.

glotz
September 25th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Bundling windows should be illegal. It's a monopoly. Bundling other operating systems is ok.

SunnyRabbiera
September 25th, 2007, 03:37 AM
for now its not gonna happen, but in the future i see some companies offering linux as an alternate install especially after all the clout concerning vista

fuscia
September 25th, 2007, 03:40 AM
in reality, the bundling of an OS has been anti-competitive.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 03:59 AM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

I can agree with that. However, what choice does the customer have? How about... none.


If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

True statement.


Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Eh, that's not entirely true. Windows cost around 50 bucks to the vendor - who do you think they pass that cost on to? They're not giving you Windows for free. You're paying for it - the cost is just added to the over all cost of the system. In fact if you buy a Dell with Linux the very same system with Windows is roughly 50 dollars more.


Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

So long as Microsoft continues to hold an illegal (intentionally overlooked for various reasons) monopoly this path of will continue.


Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

THIS is exactly what they are fighting against. With a single power in control of ANY particular market - advancements slows to a grinding halt. Microsoft IS counterproductive to the advancement of technology in this area. Think about it for a moment. What if T-Mobile was the 'Microsoft' of the cell phone industry? If that were the case - and there was no real competition - do you really think cell phones would be able to do everything except make your morning toast? No way in hell. They'd still be the size of shoe boxes. Competition is GOOD. Competition breads innovation and invention. Competition begets advancement. Microsoft is ant-competition.


Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

The problem is Windows is garbage, period. What's sad is that it doesn't have to be. But, again, when you're in complete control of the market - what do you really care if you're simply repackaging old garbage and calling it new?

Microsoft is very much, very very much, like a used car lot. They take an older car, detail in the interior, maybe slap some new speakers or put a CD player in it, wash it, throw on a coat of wax - and sell it you for three times the Blue Book value - while telling you it's really a new car - it just looks a lot like an older model.... then when it breaks down - say the transmission drops - they tell you to check to make sure the fuel cap is in tight.

THiS is the complaint from those who are more tech savvy than the average user. We see this - we see MS for it really is, and what they really do.

Linux is about choice - Microsoft is about market control which in its very nature is anti-choice.

~LoKe
September 25th, 2007, 04:13 AM
Do you complain that they only bundles certain hard drive brands, motherboard chips, or sound cards? Is your only complaint that they sell Windows with their computers?

Jesus, let's get something straight, because this is going over the heads of many.

1. You will not save money. This is a fact. The vendor will not sacrifice capital if they don't feel they need to. Vendors who offer Ubuntu/Redhat/Debian/etc/etc still charge that $50 that you would have paid for a Windows based system. You're not saving any money. In fact, I could actually say you're losing money. By not buying the Windows bundle, you're unable to send that $50 COA back.

Scenario 1: Dell w/ Windows Vista - $600. You send back the COA, install Ubuntu, refund of $50. Final cost: $550.

Scenario 2: Dell w/ Ubuntu - $600. You...well..nothing. You do nothing. You get Ubuntu (which is free for you, by the way) and receive no refund. For arguing over petty crap you just lost yourself $50.

2. Buy somewhere else. I thought I made this very clear. I posted a list earlier of vendors that sell systems with Linux distributions or without any at all. There are other options; why pick the ones that don't offer what you want?

3. The computer does not belong to you. Yet. Until you pay for the system, it is the property of the vendor. If the vendor wants Windows Vista on their computers, they will put it there. It's up to you to choose if you want to buy their system, which includes Windows.

Scenario 1: HP has a computer you want, but they won't sell it without Windows. Complain complain, no result.

Scenario 2: There's a computer being sold by an idividual, but it includes Windows. Do you complain that they're not offering Linux? Why not?

There are so many choices here, but some of you seem to be focusing on the negative only. They're offering a product, and someone else is offering a product. Choose between your options and get over it. No one's forcing you to buy a computer with Windows.

Sometimes I think that some Linux users put themselves on a high horse when it comes to Windows. As if they truly believe that there's any wrong doing here. You have choices, and you always will.


THIS is exactly what they are fighting against. With a single power in control of ANY particular market - advancements slows to a grinding halt. Microsoft IS counterproductive to the advancement of technology in this area. Think about it for a moment. What if T-Mobile was the 'Microsoft' of the cell phone industry? If that were the case - and there was no real competition - do you really think cell phones would be able to do everything except make your morning toast? No way in hell. They'd still be the size of shoe boxes. Competition is GOOD. Competition breads innovation and invention. Competition begets advancement. Microsoft is ant-competition.

Microsoft doesn't control the market. Do I have to quote the same list of vendors that sell *nix systems? Just because they're the majority, doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. It's all business and everyone just wants to make more money.

Frankly, Windows doesn't hurt me at all. In fact, I'd say it's because of Windows that we have so many of the luxuries that we have now. If it weren't for them, it's unlikely that much of the work done on Linux distros would never have been completed or even started. It's becoming more user friendly to encourage Windows users to make the switch. Competition is good, and having a giant at one end will only encourage the other side to try harder.

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Do you complain that they only bundles certain hard drive brands, motherboard chips, or sound cards? Is your only complaint that they sell Windows with their computers?

Jesus, let's get something straight, because this is going over the heads of many.

1. You will not save money. This is a fact. The vendor will not sacrifice capital if they don't feel they need to. Vendors who offer Ubuntu/Redhat/Debian/etc/etc still charge that $50 that you would have paid for a Windows based system. You're not saving any money. In fact, I could actually say you're losing money. By not buying the Windows bundle, you're unable to send that $50 COA back.

Scenario 1: Dell w/ Windows Vista - $600. You send back the COA, install Ubuntu, refund of $50. Final cost: $550.

Scenario 2: Dell w/ Ubuntu - $600. You...well..nothing. You do nothing. You get Ubuntu (which is free for you, by the way) and receive no refund. For arguing over petty crap you just lost yourself $50.

2. Buy somewhere else. I thought I made this very clear. I posted a list earlier of vendors that sell systems with Linux distributions or without any at all. There are other options; why pick the ones that don't offer what you want?

3. The computer does not belong to you. Yet. Until you pay for the system, it is the property of the vendor. If the vendor wants Windows Vista on their computers, they will put it there. It's up to you to choose if you want to buy their system, which includes Windows.

Scenario 1: HP has a computer you want, but they won't sell it without Windows. Complain complain, no result.

Scenario 2: There's a computer being sold by an idividual, but it includes Windows. Do you complain that they're not offering Linux? Why not?

There are so many choices here, but some of you seem to be focusing on the negative only. They're offering a product, and someone else is offering a product. Choose between your options and get over it. No one's forcing you to buy a computer with Windows.

Sometimes I think that some Linux users put themselves on a high horse when it comes to Windows. As if they truly believe that there's any wrong doing here. You have choices, and you always will.



Microsoft doesn't control the market. Do I have to quote the same list of vendors that sell *nix systems? Just because they're the majority, doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. It's all business and everyone just wants to make more money.

Frankly, Windows doesn't hurt me at all. In fact, I'd say it's because of Windows that we have so many of the luxuries that we have now. If it weren't for them, it's unlikely that much of the work done on Linux distros would never have been completed or even started. It's becoming more user friendly to encourage Windows users to make the switch. Competition is good, and having a giant at one end will only encourage the other side to try harder.

1. Sorry that's not a fact. You will save money. Instead of inventing a scenario, go to Dell's page. You will find a Win machine equipped identically to an Ubuntu box, the Ubuntu box is cheaper. If not post it please, I'd like to see it.

2. Buying somewhere else is great, however, that's a new option.

3. There is a difference if the vendor won't offer, and just can't due to fear of retribution, i.e. in terms of OEM license fees.

Next scenario

1. HP is planning on offering Linux due to "complaining", AKA customer demand.

2. Unless they provide the Retail Disk and are not selling their Windows machine that came with a copy of Windows, or they are violating MS EULA. Note: Actually, can someone reactivate the OEM copy in a new name over the phone? Anyone have experience with 2nd hand XP machines that contain the OS the previous owner used? I would let them know, then advise them to offer it with an Ubuntu CD :P

Lastly, MS did do something wrong, by leveraging their monopoly. Anti-trust.

http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595-6153904.html/

Whether they are up to their exact same old tricks... I'd say no, since OEMs are able to offer a choice.

I'm not sure how Windows gave us luxuries? Do you mean cheaper hardware? I'd say it was due to improved manufacturing processes and competition. Seems to apply to other hardware like TV's, DVD players, CD players, Portable players, etc.

Competition is good, it's great even. Having one giant that can strong arm and bully, and claim that patents encourage innovation and at the same time are a stumbling block to interoperability... Doesn't seem so great to me... Why pay for their software if you don't want it nor need it to run your machine. That sounds different than bundling, sounds like tying.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I beg to differ. MS is very much in control of the market. How many companies and or individuals have been threatened by them?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=265

http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=126

How many links can we all post here (legit links) describing the threats made by this gluttonous monopoly?

Is that what you support? In a supposed free market - a company with the money and Lobbying power to quash any and every venture that dare threaten their bottom line? This is healthy? For who? The shareholders of Microsoft?

I am not disagreeing with you that the vendors have the right to pre-install whatever OS they choose. We live in a free market - which I am very much in favor of - so if YOU don't want to buy a particular machine because it has Windows - then don't. I don't see a flaw in this logic.

The problem is MS is a MONOPOLY. The Anti-Trust laws of 1914 - the Clayton Act - were created for good reasons. We're seeing the results of our legislation refusing to enforce those acts now coming to fruition.

Hardware vendors are essentially forced to do business with MS or, more or less, shut their doors. While I have no solid proof - I would suspect that companies like ATI (now AMD) have been slow to offer Linux drivers for their products because of closed-door meetings with, or perhaps 'off the record' threats made to them by MS - who has shown on more than one occasion their willingness to do what is necessary to hold their monopoly. Can't really blame the hardware vendors who themselves are trying to turn a profit.

I see nothing wrong with ANY country - non US or not - telling MS to go jump.

Yes, the genesis of Windows has indeed brought about leaps and bounds in science and technology. But, that contribution, as it were, now takes backstage to threats and bullying by an unchecked monopoly that has abandoned the quest for innovation and quality in favor of market control and greed.

~LoKe
September 25th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Competition is good, it's great even. Having one giant that can strong arm and bully, and claim that patents encourage innovation and at the same time are a stumbling block to interoperability... Doesn't seem so great to me... Why pay for their software if you don't want it nor need it to run your machine. That sounds different than bundling, sounds like tying.

Bundling and tying are the same thing, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'm not talking about any anti-trust case, or anything that Microsoft is doing directly against Linux, I'm strictly talking about their software being included with computers.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 04:41 AM
The entire basis of this *issue* does indeed lie with the monopoly strangle hold MS has on the market.

Hardware vendors (today) aren't restricted to solely a US economy. There are millions of Linux users world wide.

How much cost would a company like AMD has to incur to develop a viable Linux driver for their video cards? How much money would they make, by opening their products up to millions of potential customers who'd gladly buy their product if it supported their OS?

You can't tell me they haven't crunched the numbers... Yet, they've been slow in doing this - why? Because of MS, it is that simple.

Put Microsoft in check and enforce the Anti-Trust laws and I can almost guarantee we'd see exponentially more Linux support from a sea of hardware vendors.

The point that I can't make strongly enough is that - NO ONE is getting much of a choice. Vendors, hardware vendors, customers, software developers - no one is really getting much of a choice here. You either write your software to run in MS or you don't make a profit. You either write your drivers to operate your hardware products to run in Windows or you don't stay in business very long. You either buy a computer with Windows on it, or you pretty much have to build your own.

This isn't because of our free market in action. This isn't because the customers have FREELY chosen, necessarily. This because of one company who has repeatedly abused the law (and gotten away with it). This is because of ONE company who uses threats and any other means deemed as necessary to force their products on everyone.

That's the crux of my point. We [everyone involved] aren't getting a real choice.

~LoKe
September 25th, 2007, 04:47 AM
You're getting off topic. As far as I can see, this thread was simply about there being a problem with vendors selling Windows with their PC's, and not Linux/others. Unless I'm mistaken, the OP wasn't complaining that this further supports Microsoft in their tyranny, but rather that they were forcing an operating system on the end user.

It's very likely that I interpreted his post improperly, and if that's the case, I apologize. I can definitely agree that the choke hold that Microsoft has over others is unacceptable, my point was simply that bundling with systems is not wrong.

Perhaps I just wasn't looking at the big picture. And again, I'm sorry.

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 04:51 AM
Bundling and tying are the same thing, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'm not talking about any anti-trust case, or anything that Microsoft is doing directly against Linux, I'm strictly talking about their software being included with computers.

Bundling and tying are not the same thing.


bundling
3 : to include (a product or service) with a related product for sale at a single price <software is bundled with computer hardware>
intransitive verb
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bundling

tying
3: to restrain from independence or freedom of action or choice : constrain by or as if by authority, influence, agreement, or obligation
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tying

To expect it to be the norm that buying a PC with Windows, has something to do with anti-trust. Don't skirt around the issue. MS intentionally made agreements that don't just block Linux, but any other OS from installing on the same hardware, even if the OEM wanted to. Should the OEM be allowed to have a dual boot box with XP/VIsta and any other non MS OS... ?

As for their software being included with computers, if that's what you want to focus on. I say it's fine, as long as the OEM can put something else or nothing if they decide to, without fearing consequence coming from something other than consumers

~LoKe
September 25th, 2007, 04:52 AM
But Dell is shipping Linux and FreeDos. If Microsoft has this bind on them, how can they do this?

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 04:56 AM
But Dell is shipping Linux and FreeDos. If Microsoft has this bind on them, how can they do this?

http://www.admarketreview.com/public_html/air/ai200706.html

Microsoft may not be the Great Satan, but they're not stupid either. They know Dell is a juggernaut in the PC market. Dell may sell a couple of thousand PC's with Linux, but they'll sell a couple of million with Windows, which turns a profit for MS. Rather than pull the plug on their sales to Dell and lose that profit they'll simply go after everyone else. - At least this is my take on it.

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 05:03 AM
But Dell is shipping Linux and FreeDos. If Microsoft has this bind on them, how can they do this?

exsuseuser posted a great link. I'll also mention this
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2007050906365658

Might just be a coincidence this was shortly after Dell announced offering machines with Ubuntu...

Anyway, I meant in terms of dual-boot. No OEM's ever offer a windows box along with another OS. None. If the anti-trust stuff is a hint, it's in the secret OEM agreement.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 05:08 AM
exsuseuser posted a great link. I'll also mention this
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2007050906365658

Might just be a coincidence this was shortly after Dell announced offering machines with Ubuntu...

Anyway, I meant in terms of dual-boot. No OEM's ever offer a windows box along with another OS. None. If the anti-trust stuff is a hint, it's in the secret OEM agreement.

Ha... nice link - hence my name of "Ex" SuSEusr ;)

And, yes - we're off topic - nature of the beast after 90+ posts :)

Polygon
September 25th, 2007, 05:17 AM
i have not read the rest of the topic, but im sure if this did happen apple would fight it tooth and nail, and for good reason. The reason macs are becoming more popular is because literally everything works, cause they have complete control of what hardware goes into their computers so they have gotten the drivers down to almost perfection.

I say keep the way it is now, only we should have a choice on to either buy a computer with a OS preinstalled, or a computer with no operating system installed.

Depressed Man
September 25th, 2007, 05:26 AM
Well I can't imagine this being problematic for Apple. Since they themselves are selling you both the hardware and OS. While Microsoft and Linux are sold preinstalled on a wide variety of computers. And neither sells both the hardware and OS.

kozy6871
September 25th, 2007, 05:28 AM
I think the manufacturer should install the OS (a computer without one is an expensive and useless paperweight), but it should be the OS of the customer's choice, not that of the manufacturer. After all, generally the person purchasing the PC in the first place is the one that will use it.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 05:34 AM
There shouldn't be any mandates forcing a vendor to offer this or that... what they offer SHOULD be the result of a freedom of choice.

I do not support a company (Dell, HP, Sony - take your pick) being forced to offer both Linux and Windows.

I also do not support said companies (or any company for that matter) to be forced to offer certain bundles (as in the case of computer manufacturers).

The problem here is that they are indeed being forced - not by market forces, but by the power of one company.

Not sure if I am articulating what I'm meaning to say clearly.

Rupertronco
September 25th, 2007, 06:55 AM
http://system76.com/ Begs to differ. I'm pretty sure that they don't offer any Windows machines, let me check, nope, they don't.

The OEMs have a choice here. The majority of them choose WIndows. Windows computers will make them more money, so the decision is pretty easy. If I were running a business, I'd chose the money over principle (in this case).

Most of the companies we're talking about are publicly traded. It's up to the stockholders what the company does, not the government. If I owned a stock in company X, who was now forced to no longer bundle their OS and was taking hits in their income, therefore reducing my dividends, I wouldn't be too happy about it. If this change needs to be brought about, it needs to be done in a different fashion, by consumers and those with a stake in the company, not governments.

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 07:30 AM
http://system76.com/ Begs to differ. I'm pretty sure that they don't offer any Windows machines, let me check, nope, they don't.

The OEMs have a choice here. The majority of them choose WIndows. Windows computers will make them more money, so the decision is pretty easy. If I were running a business, I'd chose the money over principle (in this case).

Most of the companies we're talking about are publicly traded. It's up to the stockholders what the company does, not the government. If I owned a stock in company X, who was now forced to no longer bundle their OS and was taking hits in their income, therefore reducing my dividends, I wouldn't be too happy about it. If this change needs to be brought about, it needs to be done in a different fashion, by consumers and those with a stake in the company, not governments.

Did anyone here claim that there are no OEMs that don't offer Windows?

The point is that MS, strong armed OEMs that do offer Windows. If it was so business friendly, I'm sure they wouldn't have had to resort to tricks
Go to section IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm

So some people want Windows, some don't. So if some don't, the OEMs should be free to include something else or no OS. The idea that not bundling at all will ensure no bullying.

I'm of the opinion they can bundle, if they "want" to, and should offer "no OS" as a choice.

If you're all about money, not offering Windows saves cash. Ultimately consumers will decide. If it's not worth it Dell, HP, and others wouldn't be hopping on the bandwagon. They should be allowed to do so without fearing a backlash from some large Corp.

theangryamoeba
September 25th, 2007, 07:35 AM
I'm a college student, I first installed linux in the late 90s when I was 14. I'm currently putting myself through school working at Staples. I loathe Windows, I really do. I haven't had it installed on any computer that I use for the last three years.

My primary responsibility at work is to sell people computers. They are all running Vista. Most of the people I deal with don't have the foggiest idea about computers. They want something that WORKS.

I sell computers to people who use their computers for checking email, and looking at pictures. They don't care about the details. They want to know if the computer will perform what they want it to, has enough storage, and is fast enough. A lot of people are very reluctant to purchase a machine with vista, But they are even more reluctant to try Linux. I keep a pile of ubuntu disks around for people to try out. Of the machines I've tested with Knoppix or Ubuntu live discs, only three have had nearly perfect support. Most have issues with the Wifi, or APCI. No one will buy a pc that has linux pre-installed if they aren't able to get decent hardware support.

My previous laptop I got in November of 2006. I couldn't get my wifi to work, It took 20 minutes from when I clicked the download link until i had it installed. After every kernel update, I would have to get the new svn and hope that everything still worked. There wasn't a release of madwifi that supported my wireless card until April. On top of that, iIt took me several days of hacking around to get my sound not to crackle and hiss. I had installed the ATI drivers, and then had to manually tweak xorg to get everything working properly. Sometimes there are things that we resign ourselves to not functioning. I gave up on my function keys because the omnibook driver didn't want to work with my bios' acpi. Most people would have given up imediately and returned the computer for something that worked. A real estate agent, or doctor, wouldn't have even bothered with the time, it would have been returned for something that did work.

What I think is a problem is that most people in the linux world don't realize that the general public isn't like us. A bundled PC is an appliance, The average user can figure out how to send an email, or look at some pictures. But they don't know anything about its inner workings, It is a magic box that does its thing.

BoyOfDestiny
September 25th, 2007, 07:48 AM
<snip>
Basically Linux has a catch 22; drivers won't be out in a timely manner until Linux is widely used, but until there are drivers no one wants to touch it on a new machine.

Okay... OEM support has made a difference, especially in what you are talking about.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7536907294.html

Anyway, pre-installed is easier, which I gather is the main point. Worst case, a custom CD/DVD to make the install as simple as possible. If the OEM, like Dell, push for the hardware to have open drivers, say hello to plug and play...

I don't think bundling should be banned however (I just don't want tying...), so... Just my two cents regarding drivers and hardware "just working"...

swoll1980
September 25th, 2007, 09:17 AM
I don't see how you can even say microsoft is expensive when you compare it to other software programs by different venders. ie Corel's Word perfect and Vmware are both in the same price range just to name a few. The adobe photoshop program is $1000 U.S.

koshari
September 25th, 2007, 12:24 PM
I don't see how you can even say microsoft is expensive when you compare it to other software programs by different venders. ie Corel's Word perfect and Vmware are both in the same price range just to name a few. The adobe photoshop program is $1000 U.S.

hardly a valid arguement,

i dont need or want photoshop, so i simply didnt buy it.

i think a better comparison is looking at the cost of a licence compared to hardware these days, my first pentium cost over 2kAUD and windows was about 150 dollars. ten years later i can buy a core2duo system for half the price but windows is still round $150.

the whole point of this thread is about choice.

and while i believe you shouldn't have to buy windows if you dont want it, i think it still should be available bundled WHEN the customer asks for it.

otherwise non tech people are just not going to be able to install windows. many might think this isnt such a bad thing but thats their choice.

quinnten83
September 25th, 2007, 12:25 PM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

First of all,
the pre- installed windows is not free,you paid for it,just reduced in price.
- the vendor can install your OS for you prior to delivery, but now they can give you a choice and they are not dependent on MS, so MS holds less power over how they chose to do their business.
- This is a great chance to let people get in touch with other OS's.Be it linux, macOS, freeBSD or whatever is out there.
- This might force people to create a standard when it comes to software. Wich in the long run will benefit the consumer because files will be supported across all platforms without any quality loss (read more use of open standards)
people will learn how to use the OS of their choice, just like they had to learn to use windows.

in the end it boils down to more choice and less monopoly.
and I am not against windows (I use some of their software and i like it), I am just pro choice!!!

keyboardashtray
September 25th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I understand how the pro-bundling rights crowd feels that this is simply a matter of free enterprise, and they should be able to sell what they want.

In a perfect-world, perfectly free economy, this would work out just fine.

But the bottom line is that governments are already interfering, and just as often (if not more often than not) the governments make decisions and laws that meddle with free enterprise to the favor of these big companies.

So this would be just another tweaking by the government to make things right, for the consumer. And yes, in the age we live in, with what is going on now, the consumer would win.

The government already meddles, they might as well balance things in the process.

forrestcupp
September 25th, 2007, 01:35 PM
I'm sure it's been said many times in this thread already, but some people are not geeks. Many people just want to go buy a computer and it just works for them. Most people don't want to have to worry about finding the right OS and then install it before they can even think about playing that game of solitaire or getting on the net.

Maybe there should be an option to buy a computer at a lower cost without an OS. But saying they can't bundle an OS is ridiculous.

tombott
September 25th, 2007, 01:49 PM
I think this is ever so slightly over the top.

There should be a choice:

PC / Laptop with No OS
PC / Laptop with Windows Pre-Installed
PC / Laptop with CD's that auto installs OS of your choice.

HP / Compaq used to do this with their servers.
You bought the server and it came with a Windows install, Novell Install, RedHat install etc.

It was then up to you to provide the product key / serial number /licenses.

Yet again I have had to wade through countless posts of Microsoft bashing.

As previously stated do you really think that Joe Blogg's wants to install his own OS on a PC / Laptop he has just bought?
No of course not, he want the the machines he has just spent the best part of 400 + ($800) to turn on and work.

We should have the choice agreed, we should not be forced agreed, but the options all need to be there Windows, Linux, Mac or nothing.

Depressed Man
September 25th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Hmm one benefit (hopefully) would be that if you could choose whatever OS to be preinstalled on there (or none) then maybe everything would work out of the box.

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 02:10 PM
I'm sure it's been said many times in this thread already, but some people are not geeks. Many people just want to go buy a computer and it just works for them. Most people don't want to have to worry about finding the right OS and then install it before they can even think about playing that game of solitaire or getting on the net.

Maybe there should be an option to buy a computer at a lower cost without an OS. But saying they can't bundle an OS is ridiculous.


That's all fine and dandy, but the problem is that many of the vendors aren't really getting the choice to offer other OS's.

What are the vendors supposed to do when they're being directly threatened by MS if they dare offer anything BUT Windows? We've already shown more than a few links where this company has done just that.

What about the software vendors? What are they supposed to do when they get that call from the MS corporate office saying, "Sure you can write this or that product, but if you don't make it specifically for Windows, we'll sue your @ss for paten infringement!"

My friends this is the point some of us are trying to make. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company being allowed to offer whatever bundles they want. There's nothing wrong with a company being able to offer whatever OS they want with their systems. But, it's the reason behind why certain bundles are 'offered' and why a certain OS is the only choice. It is NOT because of market forces, or the choice of the consumer - it's because of an illegal monopoly held by a company that will stoop to mofia-esque techniques to ensure their stranglehold on the market.

You don't think HP would love to offer more of a selection to tap into other parts of the market and increase their profits? You don't think AMD and the like would love to offer non-Windows drivers with their products to increase their bottom lines? What about Adobe? I'm pretty sure, I'd even be willing to bet, they'd love to offer non-Windows versions of Photoshop to tap into the ever growing market share of Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever.

There's a reason they don't/can't. Once you put 2 and 2 together and understand that reason, you'll understand our complaint.

mcduck
September 25th, 2007, 02:46 PM
I answered "partially".

I think there should be option to either select the OS you want, or buy the computer without OS at lower price.

It's pretty impossible to find a computer without Windows pre-installed, and as I don't want Windows it feels pretty stupid that I'm forced to buy it anyway.

Even though the Windows EULA says that you can get your money back if you don't accept it, it's much extra work that isn't necessary, and forcing them to pay back your money isn't too easy of a task.

Of course most people wouldn't even be able to install any OS so I don't think banning pre-installed operating systems would really benefit most people.

In case the hardware doesn't work with other operating systems it should of course be allowed to sell it with the OS that works with it pre-installed.

In the end I think demanding hardware vendors to offer at least major part of their pre-built machines with selection of operating systems or no OS at all would be fair.

BDNiner
September 25th, 2007, 03:25 PM
This whole discussion makes no sense. If someone doesn't want windows on their computer then erase it. If you want linux preinstalled then buy from a vendor that sells computers with linux on them. These are not difficult decisions to make. You can't force an OEM to run their business the way you would. Why don't you go out and start your own OEM and then you can dictate what OS to include on your computers. Or how about when you receive that refund check for the windows license, donate that money to one of the numerous linux vendors out there. Sometimes linux users can be just as bad as windows ones.

mcduck
September 25th, 2007, 04:00 PM
This whole discussion makes no sense. If someone doesn't want windows on their computer then erase it. If you want linux preinstalled then buy from a vendor that sells computers with linux on them.

Maybe you aren't aware of 2 things:

1. You are still paying money for the Windows that you are not going to use and that you don't want.

2. Even if computers without Windows might be easily available where you live, this isn't the case everywhere.

Depressed Man
September 25th, 2007, 04:34 PM
And

3) a computer is more likely to be fully functional when the company installs the OS themselves (otherwise it'd be kinda stupid for the company trying to sell one that barely works).

It'd be nice if my card reader and webcam worked out of the box if I could buy it with Ubuntu preinstalled (or both Windows XP or Vista and Ubuntu) insteaf of me tinkering for it to work.

BDNiner
September 25th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Maybe you aren't aware of 2 things:

1. You are still paying money for the Windows that you are not going to use and that you don't want.

2. Even if computers without Windows might be easily available where you live, this isn't the case everywhere.

The EULA states that you WILL get a refund if you don't want windows installed. This is not a myth either, at work we have gotten refunds for windows server 2003 because we wanted to install red hat. Computers without windows installed are not easily available where i live. I know of wal mart that sells ubuntu dell computers but that is it.

If you have gotten to the point where you want to install linux instead of windows on a computer then you need to be somewhat tech savy. it is not for typical home users. If you can use use google then obtaining a computer with linux preinstalled will not be a problem no matter where you live since UPS, FedEx and DHL cover the globe pretty well.

Depressed Man
September 25th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Yeah you can get refunds, it just takes work and additional time to get it.

mcduck
September 25th, 2007, 04:59 PM
The EULA states that you WILL get a refund if you don't want windows installed. This is not a myth either, at work we have gotten refunds for windows server 2003 because we wanted to install red hat. Computers without windows installed are not easily available where i live. I know of wal mart that sells ubuntu dell computers but that is it.

If you have gotten to the point where you want to install linux instead of windows on a computer then you need to be somewhat tech savy. it is not for typical home users. If you can use use google then obtaining a computer with linux preinstalled will not be a problem no matter where you live since UPS, FedEx and DHL cover the globe pretty well.
Buying a computer from some other country is always trouble. First thing is I can't actually check the machine, second is that I won't have the same rights as consumer as I would if I bought the machine from Finland, and the third is that if there's anything wrong with the machine I won't be able to just take it to the shop where I bought it but instead I'd need to send it around the world, possibly paying myself for the fun. Also I wouldn't get the compute with a keyboard suitable for typing my own language (and no, even changing the keymap doesn't help as Finnish keyboard has more keys than UK/US keyboard has).. Ordering a machine from some other country simply isn't acceptable solution.

And it's just plain stupid to be forced to buy something you don't want to buy and then try to return it. Even more so as getting your money back from Microsoft isn't that easy of a task for consumers, even if bigger companies may be able to do that without any serious fighting. No matter what the EULA says. Just search the Google and you'll find masses of information about people fighting Microsoft to get the refund EULA promises.

tsnell
September 25th, 2007, 05:22 PM
It should be banned, because it denies the user the freedom of choosing their OS of choice. and They then have the hassle of Warranties and of removing the offending Os and reformatting the Hard Drive!

ExSuSEusr
September 25th, 2007, 05:22 PM
The issue is with choice here. Windows is essentially FORCED on us. There's not many vendors that offer non-Windows at all, and even then the selection is limitied on what you can get. I keep saying this over and over and I don't think I'm being heard... This isn't the result of market forces driving the vendors to exclusively include Windows on their machines. This is the result of MS FORCING their product on us through the use of threats and other means.

Why is so hard to understand?

Yes, the vendors can offer whatever they want, and yes you as the customer can reject (by not buying) the product... but when you *need* something and you are limited on your choices by the illegal actions of a monopoly, how can anyone justify this?

You either buy a computer (for the most part) with Windows, or do you don't get a computer. Vendors either sell their machines with Windows, or they sell their machines without an OS at all - if not they get the pleasure of being bullied and or sued....

I am amazed that people don't get this... don't see what's going on...

happysmileman
September 25th, 2007, 05:36 PM
So now only popular operating systems should be included as choices? Who gets to decide which are "popular" enough to be included? Maybe they should appoint you as the person who gets to make that decision

Well ok I forgot about anything else while writing my post, which is why I went back and edited it. BSD and all should be supported, but I think there SHOULD be a way to decide (based purely on quality and stuff, not opinion or size of user base) what can be bundled...
For example Linux, BSD, Windows, Maybe Solaris would be included in this definition, buty a crappy OS I make wouldn't be, not unless I can prove it's capable of for example 90% of things on a set list of priorities?

an93l
September 25th, 2007, 05:43 PM
The issue is with choice here. Windows is essentially FORCED on us. There's not many vendors that offer non-Windows at all, and even then the selection is limitied on what you can get. I keep saying this over and over and I don't think I'm being heard... This isn't the result of market forces driving the vendors to exclusively include Windows on their machines. This is the result of MS FORCING their product on us through the use of threats and other means.

Why is so hard to understand?

Yes, the vendors can offer whatever they want, and yes you as the customer can reject (by not buying) the product... but when you *need* something and you are limited on your choices by the illegal actions of a monopoly, how can anyone justify this?

You either buy a computer (for the most part) with Windows, or do you don't get a computer. Vendors either sell their machines with Windows, or they sell their machines without an OS at all - if not they get the pleasure of being bullied and or sued....

I am amazed that people don't get this... don't see what's going on...

i think we do get this. we are pro choice but you are willing to take the vendor choice away entirely that is just a bit one sided, pro choice is for everyone whether they choose what you do or not. the vendors can also choose to be bullied by MS if they want but there is legislation going forward to stop this patent in software nonsense this should stop the MS lawsuits for patents on software held that they stole in the first place from xerox. i don't think MS sews them anyway they give them money bonuses if they sell their product so its the vendors choice to make more money that stops them bundling other OS's. the fact that Dell is selling PC's bundled with Ubuntu will show the other vender's that it can be done and they will follow suit soon enough.

roachk71
September 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Yes:

* U3
* Windows
* Junkware (trial versions)

these should be banned unless explicitly desired.

I especially despise all the junkware, much of which contains some form of spyware and potentially destabilizes the system. :KS

Oh, and I really HATE spending an hour or more uninstalling it. I'd much rather install Ubuntu over such a plagued OS (chuckle).

swoll1980
September 30th, 2007, 03:04 AM
hardly a valid arguement,

i dont need or want photoshop, so i simply didnt buy it.

i think a better comparison is looking at the cost of a licence compared to hardware these days, my first pentium cost over 2kAUD and windows was about 150 dollars. ten years later i can buy a core2duo system for half the price but windows is still round $150.

the whole point of this thread is about choice.

and while i believe you shouldn't have to buy windows if you dont want it, i think it still should be available bundled WHEN the customer asks for it.

otherwise non tech people are just not going to be able to install windows. many might think this isnt such a bad thing but thats their choice.

I don't see how my point is invalid the microsoft OS cost way more to develop and does alot more than the corel word perfect program yet they are the same price and you don't need windows either or a computer for that matter. Computers are not one of the 5 basic needs. If someone can't afford windows or does not want to pay for they are free to install Ubuntu or forget that computers even exist

Depressed Man
September 30th, 2007, 04:51 AM
I don't see how my point is invalid the microsoft OS cost way more to develop and does alot more than the corel word perfect program yet they are the same price and you don't need windows either or a computer for that matter. Computers are not one of the 5 basic needs. If someone can't afford windows or does not want to pay for they are free to install Ubuntu or forget that computers even exist

We don't need alot of things to survive, so why do we live in such an industralized/technology society? In today's society, not having a computer or not using one is pretty much gimping yourself.

Turn the entire world into a society without need of computers then you can feel free to say that. Until then, a computer is just a sub process towards one of our 5 basic needs.

p_quarles
September 30th, 2007, 05:05 AM
We don't need alot of things to survive, so why do we live in such an industralized/technology society? In today's society, not having a computer or not using one is pretty much gimping yourself.

Turn the entire world into a society without need of computers then you can feel free to say that. Until then, a computer is just a sub process towards one of our 5 basic needs.
I would agree with you completely, except for the fact that you said "not having a computer or not using one is pretty much gimping yourself."

I have never gimped myself without a computer. Jus' sayin'.

Depressed Man
September 30th, 2007, 05:21 AM
Well by gimped I mean hurting your chances in society. But yeah, perhaps I shouldn't have used that word (I'm always messing up these definitions anyway) lol.

I mean really, they're even trying to get computers into 3rd world countries now. Not having a computer pretty means your doomed to..well barely surviving. Not to mention it means that those who do have the computers get to dictate your life (they are the ones that will likely be voting, likely be writing letters to politicans, and causing changes in housing areas). So even if you were hanging on with the 5 basics, you could easily lose your shelter when the people with computers decide to develop whereever you live. Living out in the wild? Lands are government owned. And its those with computers that dictate government.

cogadh
September 30th, 2007, 05:44 AM
Speaking as a computer owner completely frustrated by the state of my country, I can tell you that those with the computers aren't dictating anything to our government. 70% of the population disagrees with the current state of things and most of that 70% live in computer-owning households, yet the government is still following its own path of destruction in spite of us.

p_quarles
September 30th, 2007, 05:48 AM
Well by gimped I mean hurting your chances in society. But yeah, perhaps I shouldn't have used that word (I'm always messing up these definitions anyway) lol.
:D Yeah, I know what you meant. But the Gimp gets enough s**t as it is. :D

I mean really, they're even trying to get computers into 3rd world countries now. Not having a computer pretty means your doomed to..well barely surviving. Not to mention it means that those who do have the computers get to dictate your life (they are the ones that will likely be voting, likely be writing letters to politicans, and causing changes in housing areas). So even if you were hanging on with the 5 basics, you could easily lose your shelter when the people with computers decide to develop whereever you live. Living out in the wild? Lands are government owned. And its those with computers that dictate government.
I wish I were as optimistic as you about the inffluence of computer owners on politics.

anemptygun
September 30th, 2007, 05:50 AM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

Well said. 13 year old girls don't want linux. lol

Depressed Man
September 30th, 2007, 06:15 AM
Speaking as a computer owner completely frustrated by the state of my country, I can tell you that those with the computers aren't dictating anything to our government. 70% of the population disagrees with the current state of things and most of that 70% live in computer-owning households, yet the government is still following its own path of destruction in spite of us.

It takes a while for government to do anything. It's pretty rare that disagreement with current state of affairs gets resolved quickly. Heck, people voted in a Democratic Congress and it's still taking a while. Even though the Congress has control of troop funding (and thus the ability to wage wars. Yes the President controls the Marines and technically the troops, but you can't fight wars without money). Even after a Democractic President is elected it'll still be a while before we're out of Iraq completly.

But anyway it's hard to find a job where you don't have to interact with a computer. And even harder (to find one that's good enough to support you and the 5 basics) without a resume and such (and a resume requires a computer). Not sure any place that needs a resume would accept a handwritten one anymore.

I even remembering reading articles about helping the homeless, that one effective way for helping those (who actually want to help themselves out) was providing them with computer access (to do ra resume and job searching) and a suit for an interview. At a domestic violence shelter I volunteered in, one of the things that we taught to all victims that resided in the sheltar how to use a computer (if they didn't know how). Since it's that important of a tool.

Granted you don't have to own a computer. You could always go to a public library and use theirs. Though your still putting yourself at a disadvantage in this society (but still better then none at all). And if you don't believe me, if you go to a University or school. Try not using your computer for a week, or a month. If you want to work on any assignment go find a open public computer. If you want to print something or look up someting, go find an open public computer. I've tried it myself back in high school (well tried wasn't it..more like I was forced to after the computer broke down and I didn't know how to fix it back then). Not fun at all, and very time consuming.

But to link this back to the orginal point of this thread. Which was about bundling OSes. The problem with buying a computer with a preinstalled Windows is you have to go after the refund. It's not as simple as "I don't want it, pay me now". You have to call, or email someone. Hopefully not wait on the phone, explain your situation (and hopefully they won't be like AOL customer service and try every paragraph in a book trying to get you to keep it). Then finally wait for a check.

Or you can not do that, waste whatever amount (it's not going be $150..maybe like 20-30 bucks?) and skip straight ahead to installing Linux onto it.

Granted this doesn't matter to me much on the desktop side anyway since you can build it then install whatever the hell you want (hell even a hacked copy of OSX). So this is more towards the laptop side.

Depressed Man
September 30th, 2007, 06:17 AM
Well said. 13 year old girls don't want linux. lol

Stereotypically..judging by today, a 13 year old wouldn't care which OS it is as long as their chat programs work (whether it be MSN or AIM) and Myspace.

macogw
September 30th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Yes:

* U3
* Windows
* Junkware (trial versions)

these should be banned unless explicitly desired.

I love the people who made U3. They ask you why you want to rid yourself of their horrid software. When you choose the "I use Mac or Linux" option, you are presented with a Windows .exe. They're geniuses.

macogw
September 30th, 2007, 06:25 AM
There you go. Ever heard of the refund option?
Oh that refund that the EULA says you're entitled to that only Dell ever honors? Do you realize how close to impossible it is to get? Something like 3 Dell users and 1 Asus user have gotten it. Other OEMs claim that you have agreed to the EULA by opening the box, so if you reject it when you turn on the computer it doesn't matter, or that you should take it up with Microsoft. Microsoft, of course, points out that the EULA says that you have to get it from the people you bought Windows from, so that'd be the OEM, but they say to go to Microsoft. It's like this:

10 OEM
20 MICROSOFT
30 GOTO 10

It just loops.

prizrak
October 1st, 2007, 12:49 PM
I don't agree with making the user install his/her own OS that is just idiotic. However I do think that manufacturers should be required to offer no OS options and disclose the true price of the OS to the consumer. Whether they want to offer any other OS choices is largely up to them IMO forcing them to offer alternatives is counter productive.

maduranga
October 1st, 2007, 01:54 PM
Of course not. Installing the OS is a pain in the rear, and unnecessary for the end user.

I aggree :)

beyboo
October 1st, 2007, 02:08 PM
The PC is a system consisting of hardware as well as software just like any other device like a digital watch or a calculator and an ipod or a cell phone.

I dont think there should be debundling.- however there could be a choice from the vendors for the consumers to make. They can opt for windows or linux or any other package, just like we have web hosting based on what we want.

However it wont matter so much as the vendor one way or the other can influence a novice.

Its like saying Nokia, Motorola, Sony should sell just the phones and no OS on it.

glotz
October 1st, 2007, 04:16 PM
I'm sure the Microsoft dudes are overjoyed by the results. Looks like their monopoly is safe for still some time..

a12ctic
October 1st, 2007, 07:32 PM
If the software costs money, it should be banned, if not then I don't see why not. People shouldn't have to pay for an OS that costs money, especially if they dont want it, but if its free, why not?

Het Irv
October 1st, 2007, 07:36 PM
Partialy
For novice and computer illiterate users there is a large market for computers that work literaly "out of the box". But I also think that there is just as much of a market for Computer without OS's.
Dell is starting to go the right way but more needs to be done.

Celegorm
October 1st, 2007, 08:09 PM
...if someone can't afford windows or does not want to pay for they are free to install Ubuntu...

Except that they're not. How many major OEM's let you choose not to buy windows with their computers again? Let's see, Dell offers three whole linux systems to home consumers, and they are separate from the windows computers, so you're out of luck if you want one of the other models without paying for windows. There's also Apple, but macs come bundled with OS X.

If I've missed any (major) OEMs, someone please point them out to me. I'd love to find out if I have any options I don't know about next time I try to buy a computer without paying the windows tax.

lyceum
October 1st, 2007, 09:10 PM
Bundalling is fine, IF it is illegal to offer only one OS. To me, perfection would be loading the OS at home, but not everyone can do that. It would be better to bundle 2 OS on 2 hard drives, then you have an extra storage drive if you do not use one of the OSs.

Achetar
October 1st, 2007, 09:28 PM
They should offer to preinstall any OS on the computer that the consumer wants. Including No OS

prizrak
October 1st, 2007, 09:46 PM
Hey, guess what? I own a Dell. Yeah! IT CAME WITH WINDOWS! HOOORAY. My parents were ever so happy, with an operating system they've known for most of their computer related days. An operating system, which, effortlessly, allows them to browse the Internet, share pictures, and talk to people.

But hey, the little voice in my head is nagging.

"Do you want to give Linux a shot? Once I set it up it can do the same things you're used to."

"Okay."

Holy crap, a choice!

But guess what? It turns out Linux didn't work out for them. It wasn't quite what they were used to so they went back. Choice.

And now, Dell even offers Linux with your PC purchases, and you can return the COA to the vendors and get a refund.

...what's the problem?

Oh, and before I forget, read this carefully: Microsoft is not a monopoly. You might want to look up the definition of the words you use.

You might want to read some economics before you post things like that. Any company that has over 60% market share is considered a monopoly.

theDaveTheRave
October 3rd, 2007, 10:26 PM
I love threads like this one.

so many view, with such a large number being highly charged to one voice or the other.

Personally I agree that an OS should be loaded on to new pc's. Yes choice should be given, but who is going to head to a local store for a pc and then stand around waiting for the staff to install the OS of choice -not me that is for certain.

What really bothers me is the presence of all the "extra" stuff that is bundled with the OS. It is now an almost de-facto standard to use IE (not where I work incedently :) ).

If the EU really want to enforce a greater level of choice they should get develop a small system that will enable individuals to "sample" different systems and then make a choice after 30 days (giving them any refund on the licence fee should this be applicable).

If people were given this level of choice - get Windows, pay for Word, Exel, Adobe, etc or get a "free" LInux distro with a whole choice of different media players, web browsers, email clients etc, etc, etc....

Once people have to actively think about their choices freedom will occur, and true interoperability will develop - and effecting a persons finances is the quickest way to ensure this occurs.

Personally I would recomend windows, with Mozilla and evolution, VLC, GImp, blah blah blah....

But who am I to say what people should, the last thing that I want is for someone to make a choice on my recommendation, and to then be dissapointed - that would make me as bad as microsoft (just with a smaller market share :wink: ).

Pro-choice, that is what the people should want, currently they get what they are given..... who are we to say that they are making the wrong choice?

The best we can do is point out that there is a choice, some will say "we don't want that" and that is then their choice. We can only educate people to enable them to make better choices. If we don't like the choices that they then make we must ask if we have not been good teachers and given them enough information.

The best we can do is educate people to not just understand the choices they have, but ensure that they ask the right questions to the right people.

The linux community is the wrong community to teach them the questions that should be asked, this should be left to trusted independent third parties.

When I have a medical problem I surf the net and assimilate as much information as I can, I head to the major medical / sientific journals (BMJ or NEJM, Scientific American or Newscientist) as I trust them to have good information that is peer reviewed.

I don't know which journals are peer reviewed on IT issues, rather than just giving the personal beliefs of the article authors. So I need to look further afield, this is what we should be teaching the other users.

They aren't going to trust us any more than they trust the "schpiel" of MS, the difference being that MS is everywhere and hence they don't believe that they have a "choice".

OK I've now put my argument in a number of different ways, and hopefully anyone who has happened to read this will be totally confused, and encouraged to do more complete research into the choices that they do have.

Dave.

bonzodog
October 3rd, 2007, 10:30 PM
According to EU law Microsoft ARE a monopoly, and therefore WILL be taken down and FORCED to cede market share to competitors, be it Apple or Linux Distro vendors.

I personally want to see market share for Linux at 33% here in Europe.Then I will be happy. Everyone gets their slice of the cake.

What i think ought to happen is:

You, Joe Consumer, go into a PC generic seller. There are computers for sale, and on the badge it offers a choice of pre-installed OS: Windows, Chosen Linux Distro of vendors choice, or No OS. The salesman then explains that there will be say 50 Euro's added for Windows, the Price is as displayed with Linux, or you can save 50 Euro's off the current price by opting for a No OS option. Joe then buys the computer with say, Linux, and is told to return in one hour where the computer will be in pre-install state, boxed up, and ready to go. If he opts for No OS he can walk out the door now with it.

samb0057
October 9th, 2007, 05:39 PM
Does anyone know what's going on with this?

Is this something that can actually go through? Bundling has been the standard for so long.

user1397
October 9th, 2007, 08:27 PM
I am interested in this too...is there a link to the most current events concerning this matter?

tyrion2323
October 9th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Forcing companies to strip their Operating Systems from their hardware? Ludicrous.

Listen, I'm all about choice. That's why I use OS-X, Ubuntu, XP and Vista...because I want to know about my choices. I'd be impressed if there was more industry support for selling Linux on computers.

But let's be honest for a second - the vast, vast, vast majority of computer users have no idea how to install an operating system, much less make it run by hunting down all the drivers for them. Furthermore, Ubuntu doesn't even come ready to play DVDs...do you honestly think we're going to increase popularity of Linux and Ubuntu by luring unknowing customers into using our OS and then having them gripe that it won't play DVDs or run iTunes? You think they're going to take the time to learn to use Terminal?

BS. They'll just swear off linux and use Windows. We've got to get people to use LInux because they WANT to, not because of some implicit hate for Microsoft.

cogadh
October 9th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Furthermore, Ubuntu doesn't even come ready to play DVDs...do you honestly think we're going to increase popularity of Linux and Ubuntu by luring unknowing customers into using our OS and then having them gripe that it won't play DVDs or run iTunes?
Neither does Windows. In order to play DVDs, you need a third party decoder (Roxio, CyberLink, Nvidia, InterVideo, etc.). However, when you buy a Windows-based PC with a DVD drive installed, that third party software is usually installed along with Windows. There is no reason that system manufacturers couldn't do the same with Linux.

jgrabham
October 9th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Yes, easy as that.

Tomosaur
October 10th, 2007, 01:58 PM
No, vendors should be free to do business how they please. Just like it is my choice to use Linux instead of Windows, it should be the vendors choice to only sell Windows pre-installed, or only sell Linux preinstalled, or whatever they choose.

What SHOULD be banned are Microsoft's exclusivity deals. Microsoft make agreements with vendors that the vendor will only sell Windows on their PCs, in exchange for licence subsidies and whatnot. If the vendor then goes on to start selling Linux or whatever, then Microsoft lowers the licence fee for competing vendors, meaning those vendors can then sell their PCs to people for less, thus putting the 'deviant' vendor out of business. This is what should be banned, because it stifles competition and re-enforces Microsoft's monopoly position.

w7kmc
October 11th, 2007, 01:54 AM
The average user utilizes a PC as an appliance. They do not want to be bothered with OS installs...plug 'n play baby...gotta work out of the box!

A PC is just a gadget that runs an OS. Cell phones, DVR's, GPS, satellite TV systems are all gadgets, just as a PC is for most people.

The focus of the MS vs. Linux war is gradually going to change in the next few years as devices like the iPhone become more common...who needs a desktop PC when you can carry it around with you in your pocket?

Soon it will be automobiles. Imagine a company being forced to sel these things without an OS...not going to happen. Light OS's with a JRE ...or something similiar to Apples software. I'm afraid the Steve Job's and the Apple Corp. has recognized this and is gaining an early lead in the next battlefield

Compucore
October 11th, 2007, 04:03 AM
It peeves me to no end at times when they have windows already preinstalled on such a nice brand name. This is just me personally. I usually like to buy a complete systyem even if it is a brand name without the OS and be given a choice of what I personally want to install on it. I do understand though for those who are not knowledgable in unstalling an OS. They then should be given to have one already install on it. INstead of having it there already.

COmpucore

P.S. That's why I usually buy Clones over the brand name computers usually.

Lightstar
October 30th, 2007, 07:49 AM
I think it should ALWAYS be the buyer's option.

I don't need to pay a computer with a $150-$300 M$ Windows. There should be an option to buy it without OS for $150 less! I'm all for Linux anyway.. and some people already bought a Windows license, no need to buy it twice.

bluedragon436
October 30th, 2007, 08:56 AM
My opinion not that it counts for anything is that manufacturers should have more of an option when selling thier products when it comes to OS's....like Dell is kind of starting to do with the Ubuntu systems they are starting to offer now.... My only thing is I think they should also offer an option for u to be able to purchase thier products without any OS but with a driver CD.... but again that is just my opinion....

newbie2
October 30th, 2007, 10:05 AM
there is hope :
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/10/29/hp_windows_xp_preinstalled_software/
:rolleyes:

The Jinx
October 30th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Hey if it makes the computer cheaper than i dont really mind. I mean i rather get rid of usless software myself rather than paying more for the computer itself.

EdThaSlayer
October 30th, 2007, 11:05 AM
I agree completely with this. I mean, if Microsoft has deals with EVERY big computer hardware company, there wouldn't be competition.Apple is different though, they sell both their hardware and software THEMSELVES!! If only Micro$oft did that, lets see how much profit they will get. :guitar:

yorkie
October 30th, 2007, 11:30 AM
If this idea came into force then the cost of owning a computer would for most people become more expensive.
1, O/S bundled with pc is at discounted price MS Windows for example 50 installed
70-150 without.
2, Most people do not know how to install an O/S a store would charge anything from 30 upwards.
3, Most stores would recommend Windows because better sales for them.
Most people will end up getting ripped off.
As it stands at the moment buy a computer with an O/S installed with Windows,OSX OR Linux. then you can either dual boot with an other O/S or completely uninstall bundled O/S and install something else.
People do have a choice AND btw Microsoft does not have a monopoly its just more popular.

MariusSilverwolf
October 30th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Round and round this discussion has gone. Let's spin the wheel some more, shall we?

The EU has declared that Microsoft has been operating as a monopoly, and Microsoft has said they will comply with the court orders. Bully for them. I don't recall where I saw the statistics (and I know this hurts my argument), but the stripped down version of Windows XP selling in Europe that lacked IE and Media Player integrated into the OS only accounted for 3% of Windows sales in Europe over the last 2 - 3 years.

From a market standpoint, that tells me that the average user doesn't care what Microsoft's business practices are, what the market share is, or what other options are available. They want the "full" version of Windows. That's it.

In the U.S., the general public is even less discriminating. Yes, Apple has been gaining market share over the past few years, but that's because of a brilliant marketing blitz coordinated with flashy new hardware lines. Apple touts their systems now with "it just works". Sounds familiar, neh?

We as techs/geeks/nerds/dorks/{insert preferred title here} sometimes forget just how basic most home users are. How many of us still get calls from friends and family because they can't figure out how to print a picture, or they can't access a certain website, or they don't know how to burn a CD? Imagine, if you will, somebody like my mother, who thought she broke the computer the first time she saw a banner ad telling her she might be infected, trying to install an OS. She can't set the time on the VCR. How is she going to know what options to choose when setting up Windows, much less any of the Linux distros?

In a perfect geek world, we could approach any manufacturer, pick the model we like, have the OS we adore installed, and walk away happy. But we don't like in a geek world, we live in a capitalistic industry world. The big named vendors are out to make the most money they can. Why else would reports of Microsoft and Sony dropping profits for the quarter be headline news on CNN and GameSpot alike?

For us geek types who don't want to pay for Microsoft or the ridiculous amounts of badware that comes pre-installed with it, we do have options. ~LoKe was kind enough to provide a link listing many smaller vendors who offer systems with non-Windows OS offerings. We can head to one of the local Mom & Pop stores and have a custom PC built and abstain from including an OS, or have them install the Distro of choice. We can buy all the parts ourselves, build it, and configure it as we like. We're not limited here.

Choice is wonderful. I don't think any of us will argue against it, else we wouldn't be in this forum and touting the wonders of Linux. We know we don't have to be stifled by Microsoft, be the evil or just massively successful or somewhere in between.

So while it would be nice for the big named vendors -- the Sonys, HPs, Acers, Toshibas, IBMs, et al -- to offer every conceivable OS as an option on every model sold, it's unrealistic. They can barely support the OS they DO include, and that's by having their support people follow a flowchart of questions to ask when called. Asking them to try to support other, non-traditional OSes is like asking the housing market in California to drop prices to match those in Kentucky or Ohio. As long as the market allows the choices to be limited, limited the choices shall remain.

vishna
October 31st, 2007, 11:14 PM
Imho bundling OSes with notebooks should be banned, at least in the EU. This may seem to be a drastic step yet eliminating some Microsoft market share would do some good for Europe - why should Europeans waste their money on unreliable Microsoft crap and therefore support America's economy?

Of course the best and highly unlikely solution would be a complete ban on non open-source applications in EU :)

Btw, I am planning to buy a HP Pavilion laptop because of nice design and good params :) Here in Poland they don't offer ones without Vista so I asked if I can get refund from them after having declined EULA license. Today I received a message that my question is going to be considered yet I have no idea when actually they will write back. If that OS ban was introduced I could buy this laptop right now.

FG123
October 31st, 2007, 11:34 PM
In answering the question as worded:

"Should bundling OSs with computer hardware be banned?"

Absolutely not! How can we be pushing for choice in the industry, and at the same time want to limit the vendor's choice in how to configure their systems?

Now, I don't like the fact that Windows is preinstalled by default and it's normally quite difficult to get a clean installation at sale, but there will ALWAYS be a desire for the majority of new systems to have at least something bundled. It might not have to be Windows, but a lot of people want something there rather than having to do the installation themselves. If the above question was answered yes, then all computers would be system-less when sold. How the hell is this an improvement for normal people (ie. non-geeks)?

Dylnuge
October 31st, 2007, 11:37 PM
Sort of.

They should not be completely banned, per se, because many times OEM Windows works better then Regular Windows on OEM A's machine. However, it should be required by law for them to offer removal of the OS for a complete reduction off the price. That is to say, if they are bundling $500 Vista Ultimate with their machine, they better offer a version that is $500 cheaper w/o Vista Ultimate.

Macintosh should be forced to separate their hardware and software. My main problem with Macs is the monopoly they hold on their OS-If you want to use their OS, you need to buy their expensive hardware. No upgrades, and no choices. Not great for gaming, if you ask me.

Sp4cedOut
October 31st, 2007, 11:53 PM
Of course the best and highly unlikely solution would be a complete ban on non open-source applications in EU :)

That's a terrible idea. People should be able to use the software of their choice. Plus there's those applications which have no equal open source equivalent: Photoshop, Flash, Maya, CAD.


Here's the thing, people aren't forced to buy Windows, they want to buy windows. If you think stopping bundling will kill MS market share, I have a bridge in Brookland I want to sell you.

I also don't think requiring venders to support certain OSs is fair. How will you decide which OS they have to support? If they are required to support Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, and FreeBSD, the Mandriva, Debian, Gentoo, and OpenBSD crowd will be crying bloody murder. And what if a customer wants something weird on their computer like ReactOS?

Furthermore, what if the company wants to sell computers with hardware that's not supported by Linux? Should they not be allowed to use such parts?

A fair idea would be to require a company offer a no OS option, but that won't hurt MS, I guarantee.

EDIT: Vista Ultimate only costs $179 for a one computer license, and a supplier probably gets it a lot cheaper than that.

klange
October 31st, 2007, 11:54 PM
Should it be banned? No.
Should the option of having no OS/extra software pre-installed be required? Yes.
The major problem I have with anyone selling computers is that they're not just selling you the computer, they're selling you all that crap that people like me end up uninstalling anyway, even if I keep the OS (... fine, Windows), I don't want all the adware they put on it.

Also, interesting quote I heard somewhere a while back and have been using recently: Windows Vista = $200 mail-in rebate. Quite a few companies allow you to send back all the CDs/manuals that came with Vista (etc...) along with the "Proof of Purchase" sticker and they'll give you the full cost of the OS. The EULA for Windows (since the beginning) has actually said that you can and should be reimbursed by the place of purchase if you refuse to accept the terms of the agreement.
What I really hate is companies who say "We recommend Windows Vista", which is total bull. Recommending something is one thing, but you shouldn't force people to use it.


Basically, no, but they should have to let you get it without the OS as an option.

vishna
November 1st, 2007, 03:05 PM
What I really hate is companies who say "We recommend Windows Vista", which is total bull.

Yepp that sentence is really annoying.

Still I say no to preinstalled OS. Installing OS can be reduced just to inserting CD and pressing Accept button - it is not so difficult to achieve, is it?

I may be wrong, maybe banning bundling OS with computer is bad idea but not doing anything about the problem is even worse.

Pevichaey5
November 7th, 2007, 11:26 PM
in the summer, i was doing some work in a computer retail shop. i was really surprised that the majority of people didn't know the fainest idea about computers let alone even heard of Linux.

if ubuntu get pre installed on MORE computers than just Dells, and HP's, let says on Acer machines, Ubuntu may get more global market share. hardly anyone is wanting to buy the new Windows Vista and i had the terror of having to use it in the summer, and i hated praising it up :( but i kept getting told off if i mentioned anything other than Microsoft or Apple products.

I was reading an article on the internet somewhere about a man who estimated that by 2008, Linux would have 20% market share. to be honest, i don't see this happening any time soon if Ubuntu hasn't got some kind of Advertising scheme.

Ubuntu is the very best Linux Distro i have ever tried.

cheers
soz for the moan lol

also it is not by law to sell a computer with an OS anymore

the reason Windows is on 99% of retail PC's is because most people don't know any different

MattBD
November 7th, 2007, 11:54 PM
I don't think it'd be that hard to not bundle OS's with a computer. Since you have to register a copy of Vista through Windows Genuine Advantage, that could easily form the basis of an unbundled computer.
How it could work is you buy it without an OS installed, but get with it a copy of Windows and a copy of a free Linux distro (obviously, this would ideally be Ubuntu, but no matter). The cost of the blank discs is negligible for the manufacturer. Then you install the one you want to use. If you go for the copy of Windows, then of course you have to register it online and pay an additional fee at that time. That way you have a choice. Also, it means that the extra cost of using Windows is explicit.
The only reason most people find the thought of installing an OS scary is that they've never done it- it came preinstalled. If more people did it, they'd probably be more willing to try Linux.

DoubleClicker
November 8th, 2007, 12:04 AM
A lot of people seem to not undeerstand what bundled software really is. Bundled software is software who's price is included in the price of the computer, NOT software included for free with the computer. So you are forced to pay for it whether you want it or not. I'm all in favor of companies pre-installing operating systems, as long as it's optional. But I am totally against companies forcing people to pay for an operating system they don't want because that price is part of the price of the computer. So let's say a company sells a computer with WindowsXP for $899, and they pay microsoft around $40 for the licence to install WindowsXP on that computer. Then the company should be required to sell ou the same computer without windowsXP, for no more than $859, for which the would pay microsoft nothing. And mabe even less than that because, the wouldn't have the cost of installing it either.

The real evil thing that microsoft does, that should be banned, is to charge vendors, who don't force windows on everyone, a much higher price per install than those who do.

Matakoo
November 8th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Well, I don't think banning would be a good idea to be honest. Rather the opposite...

However, I do have to take exception to those who claim there is much of a choice for the consumer today - at least as far as laptops go. It may be different in other parts of the world, but where I live you have three choices:

1. Buy a laptop with Windows pre-installed.
2. Buy a Mac.
3. Don't buy a laptop.

That's it, really. I have yet to find a laptop for sale here that you can get without Windows. And no matter how cheap it is bundled, I have really no wish to pay the equivalent of $50 or so for an OS I would never use.

And trying to get a refund from Microsoft or the vendor after you've bought the laptop...well, that's an exercise in futility at best.

SomeGuyDude
November 8th, 2007, 01:37 AM
HELL NO.

How many people who purchase computers do you think are comfortable enough to install an OS from scratch? Many want a computer they can plug into the wall, stick an ethernet cable into, and then just turn it on and surf the internet.

The LAST thing your average user wants to have to do is sift through five or six OS families and their dozens of derivatives and then start from square one installing it.

You shouldn't be forced to pay for an OS on your pre-built PC, but under no circumstances should vendors be barred from offering them pre-loaded.

Hell if vendors couldn't sell PC's pre-loaded with an OS, Apple would have been out of business decades ago.

DeadSuperHero
November 8th, 2007, 02:54 AM
I personally have no problem with one vendor bundling their OS with a computer. Sometimes, it allows for vendors to tweak it to work better with the hardware. (Apple in this case, and pretty much any commercially sold Linux machine)
I think in the end it should be the user's choice on what OS they want, though.

MattBD
November 8th, 2007, 11:25 AM
HELL NO.

How many people who purchase computers do you think are comfortable enough to install an OS from scratch? Many want a computer they can plug into the wall, stick an ethernet cable into, and then just turn it on and surf the internet.

The LAST thing your average user wants to have to do is sift through five or six OS families and their dozens of derivatives and then start from square one installing it.

You shouldn't be forced to pay for an OS on your pre-built PC, but under no circumstances should vendors be barred from offering them pre-loaded.

Hell if vendors couldn't sell PC's pre-loaded with an OS, Apple would have been out of business decades ago.

It would be very difficult to come to a solution that would please all customers. I think the current system is very unfair as it means that many customers are simply not aware of the alternatives to Windows, and it means it's not explicitly clear how much they're paying for a copy of Windows.

Then again, I don't think anyone would want to return to the days of every OEM preinstalling their own OS on the system.

I did have a brainwave last night, an elaboration of what I described previously. How about computers come preinstalled with Windows or OS X, but make it a free trial version, working only for 30 days or so (though it'd probably have to be fully featured rather than a conventional trial version where all the best stuff isn't available)? If you want to use it, there could be two ways to register it. Either online, so it's all done automatically, or phone a helpline, pay by credit card and they give you the activation code. That way, you've got the best of both worlds - you don't have to pay for the OS unless you register it, and if you do want to use it it's preinstalled. And it also means that the price of the OS is explicit.

I think you'd still need to enclose a copy of a free OS as well, to make sure that the customer is aware of the alternatives. But the ability is clearly there to make something like this a reality - that's basically how Windows Genuine Advantage works, it'd just be a variation of that.

baracuda68
December 1st, 2007, 07:59 PM
Ok
My first PC was a Packard Bell bought from Costco (here in the states) in 1996, of course with Windows95 on it. I don't know if there were any Macs there for sale at the time. For me, Linux was unheard of. All that I knew was there were more program choices for Win than Mac and it seemed the only choice for me.
Would non computer stores i.e. Wal-Mart, Costco, stores that don't have their own"in-house" tech shop, etc... bother to offer OS choices with their PC's? They wouldn't sell, at least to a new user. Maybe most average users. I think OS installing for a new user is a frightening option for them. They need bundling.
If I were a new PC today, I would probably have still chose a Vista machine, because of all the PUSH advertising MS does in the media and due to my lack of knowledge.
But as for today, as an average experienced user, I think a choice in having an installed OS,of whichever kind, or none at all, would, and should be viable.
:mad: Does this make any sense, or am I just rambling?

Mateo
December 1st, 2007, 08:23 PM
Wow, EU is getting all Orwellian on us. Good luck walking down the street, europeans. I feel bad for you guys.

Lster
December 1st, 2007, 08:57 PM
Definitely not. Why should sellers of PCs be unable to choose what operating system is put on there own product. If you don't like it, don't buy from them.

XVII
December 1st, 2007, 09:02 PM
Keep in mind that some companies bundle Linux also.

sajro
December 1st, 2007, 09:21 PM
I voted sort of.

It's not the fact that the OS is bundled that is the issue. The problem is that the OS is installed.

If my computer came with a Windows CD, fine. My trash wasn't full enough anyway. But if it came with Windows installed, that's an hour or so working out the kinks in reformatted and overwriting the drive to install Linux.

So you see, the bundling itself is ok but (unless specifically requested, as an option or such, by the user) it shouldn't be INSTALLED by default.

Mateo
December 1st, 2007, 09:35 PM
I voted sort of.

It's not the fact that the OS is bundled that is the issue. The problem is that the OS is installed.

If my computer came with a Windows CD, fine. My trash wasn't full enough anyway. But if it came with Windows installed, that's an hour or so working out the kinks in reformatted and overwriting the drive to install Linux.

So you see, the bundling itself is ok but (unless specifically requested, as an option or such, by the user) it shouldn't be INSTALLED by default.

The question is legality. Why should it be illegal for them to install the software.

If you don't want to spend that hour installing stuff you don't want, you can buy from another manufacturer that fits your needs.

popch
December 1st, 2007, 09:47 PM
if it came with Windows installed, that's an hour or so working out the kinks in reformatted and overwriting the drive to install Linux.

The time it takes to install Ubuntu on a PC which already has an OS installed is for all practical purposes the same as installing it on an empty PC.

The installer re-writes the partition map in either case.

Thus, you lose no time at all. You lose the money you paid for an OS licence you do not want to use. And you increment Microsoft's count of installed Windows instances by one.

maniacmusician
December 1st, 2007, 10:18 PM
Er...no. You fail to grasp the fact that there's no way normal users can install OS's on their own, much less configure them afterwards. This would open up a market for computer shops that would install and configure your OS for you, and most likely rip you off in the process.

XVII
December 1st, 2007, 10:36 PM
Er...no. You fail to grasp the fact that there's no way normal users can install OS's on their own, much less configure them afterwards. This would open up a market for computer shops that would install and configure your OS for you, and most likely rip you off in the process.

Plus things like the Eee PC and the One Laptop Per Child project would have to be canceled.

Mateo
December 1st, 2007, 10:40 PM
The time it takes to install Ubuntu on a PC which already has an OS installed is for all practical purposes the same as installing it on an empty PC.

The installer re-writes the partition map in either case.

Thus, you lose no time at all. You lose the money you paid for an OS licence you do not want to use. And you increment Microsoft's count of installed Windows instances by one.

Wouldn't it be slightly longer? If there is no OS on the computer then no reformatting is necessary. If there is, there is. (just for clarification, I am against the orwellian EU idea)

popch
December 1st, 2007, 10:51 PM
Wouldn't it be slightly longer? If there is no OS on the computer then no reformatting is necessary. If there is, there is. (just for clarification, I am against the orwellian EU idea)

Linux formats its partition in any event. You would not be able to detect any difference.

Mateo
December 1st, 2007, 11:04 PM
Hmm, that's strange, I don't see any reason to format a partition that has nothing on it. But i'll take your word for it.

vishna
December 3rd, 2007, 12:12 PM
The EULA states that you WILL get a refund if you don't want windows installed.

You are so wrong about this. Since Vista, its EULA states a refund depends on vendor's refund policy... and guess what... vendor's policy is not to refund :|

Anyway I have been asking HP Customer Service in Poland about their refund policy for more than one month now - no valuable response so far, only forwarding my mails somewhere else... to Microsoft perhaps :confused:

Bundled products make no good to the society - they make it grow fat. Just recently I have been to a restaurant ordering fish menu - there was a beverage choice: Cola|Fanta|Sprite... but I wanted bottled water which was also available, just separately. Monopoly of Coca-Cola co.? After arguing for 5 minutes they finally gave me bottled water with fish menu, most probably because there was another restaurant around.

That may seem a little off-topic, but imagine hardware vendors are restaurants and everywhere menu is the same: Vista Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business. If Vendors are unwilling to provide no-OS option, they must be banned to sell OSes, simple as that. It's not difficult to install OS, just insert CD and press Enter all the time ;)

koleoptero
December 3rd, 2007, 12:19 PM
I am against "bundling" oses. I believe that the customer must be given an option. And by that I mean getting the PC with windows or any/no OS installed. I don't mean vendors offering pcs with no OS installed, but choosing if you want to buy it with an OS installed. That goes for macs too.

ajm2005
December 3rd, 2007, 01:03 PM
:)

de_valentin
December 3rd, 2007, 01:23 PM
It's all about choices, as long as there are choices it is good otherwise. And at this moment there are coming more and more choices even in bundles.

pheryllt
January 7th, 2008, 01:37 AM
I agree that windows should not be bundled unless the actual price of the OS is shown in the cost price of the machine. To say that Windows is free is foolish becuase you are paying for it in some way because the vendor has to purchase the OS from Windows to be able to put it on the machine. I think if the cost of the computer is actually shown with the licensing costs separate and the cust is given the choice of Windows, Linux, or even just purchasing a machine without OS then the issue becomes nothing. The whole complaint about windows is that there is no choice. Given the choice I wipe Windows and install Ubuntu everytime but that is where the problem is when you walk in to a store there is no choice its here is your computer and hope you enjoy Windows.

melopsittacus
January 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM
I do not think that OS bundling should be completely banned. The reason is that there are a lot of users that might not know how to install an operating system for themselves so in this case they would need technical assistance. A suitable solution would be a rule enforcing to make each configuration a retail sells also available without any OS preinstalled so that if somebody wants to buy a new computer they are not forced to buy the OS as well...

insane_alien
January 7th, 2008, 09:10 PM
i'm happy to let computer store sell OS's on computers but i think you should have the option of buying a blank slate if you want. or have them install an OS of your choice. this could be done particularly easily with online distributers such as Dell.

hellion0
January 7th, 2008, 09:15 PM
I don't have a problem with manufacturers bundling the OS with their machines. For the novice user, this is actually a good thing, in the beginning.

I have a problem with not having the option of a computer with no OS installed. I shouldn't have to build a machine from scratch to have that. I also don't want to pay for an OS that won't even be installed on my machine if the "blank slate" option's there.

suziequzie
January 7th, 2008, 09:28 PM
I don't think it should be banned outright, but there should be choices offered to the consumer whether they want a system bundled with software, or sold to them clean, or even with a choice of different OS's. I would love to walk into a store and say "I love this hardware set-up... can I have *OS of choice* installed on it please?"

ugm6hr
January 7th, 2008, 09:31 PM
No.

For the following reasons:

1. What is computer hardware? I think most consumers would be upset if they took their shiny new Playstation 3 home, only to find that it would not start because no OS was installed. How about genuine "appliances" like mobile phones, mp3 players and PDAs? You could start to get silly if you included your washing machine in this list. The boundary is even more blurred with devices like the Asus EEE, which is only currently supported if you use it as an appliance, not a computer (even though it is public knowledge that it can run many OS's.

2. Most people buy computer hardware to perform a function. It is unsuitable for that purpose without an OS. I would want a refund if I bought a "computer" to surf the net, type letters and send emails, and it couldn't do that.

3. I appreciate the anti-competition stance, but many companies market a combined software / hardware package that "just works". Currently, the only example I can think of is Apple, but Commodore, Atari and Acorn have been former players in the market. The only OS that would benefit from a ban on bundled OS would be Linux distros (because it works on almost any hardware and is free). Hardly a fair situation.

4. It is unrealistic to expect vendors to support products if any OS is to be used. I'm sure a large proportion of support calls are software related - just imagine the havoc that would ensue if customers had to install an OS, and then the vendor would have to support whichever OS they installed.

I hope these points have not been made before - just my personal view!

Ocxic
January 7th, 2008, 10:58 PM
most vendors only cover there hardware, weather or not they wish to support a specific OS is there choice, beside these forums are better tech support then anything else I've encountered

Espreon
January 7th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Well sort of ,the OEM should make OS installation discs available to buy...

kwacka
January 7th, 2008, 11:16 PM
I don't know if it is still the case, but Microsoft got their dominant position by charging vendors for Windows on every computer they sold (whether it did or not), if they didn't like it they didn't get to deal with Microsoft.

Adverts also had to contain a notice saying "X recommends Windows" which is why you see adverts for Linux/mac products with that note stuck on the page.

ugm6hr
January 8th, 2008, 07:58 AM
most vendors only cover there hardware, weather or not they wish to support a specific OS is there choice, beside these forums are better tech support then anything else I've encountered

I think you are missing the point. If there is a problem with your "computer" - you would ring customer support. How are they to know if the problem is with your OS or hardware, unless they have some working knowledge of the OS. I know that their initial advice is often to just restore the OS from a restore DVD / partition if they are unsure. Obviously, that only works if they know that the restored OS will work flawlessly. Otherwise they would have to replace all hardware suspected of malfunction.

I agree - this forum is better than most manufacturer tech support. However, that point is irrelevant, since if no OS is allowed to be bundled, every single OS available in the world would have to have a similar source of support. It also doesn't change the issue above. As I am sure you are aware, there are some users who [/I]never[/I] solve their hardware problems in Linux, despite much assistance here.


I don't know if it is still the case, but Microsoft got their dominant position by charging vendors for Windows on every computer they sold (whether it did or not), if they didn't like it they didn't get to deal with Microsoft.

If this is true, then that kind of agreement should be banned. I can't think of anything more anti-competitive.

Methuselah
January 8th, 2008, 08:26 AM
I wish windows didn't have near monopoly control over PC hardware but I don't know if requiring PC makers to sell systems that are not -out-of-the-box usable would be helpful for people in general.

Make no mistake, windows is dominant becuase it comes installed on most hardware. If my first PC came with linux taht's what I would have used first. If it didn't come with anything, I would have chosen something competitively priced. Windows would have to have been competitively priced to get my bucks.

The preinstallation of windows creates a certain positive feedback loop in which harwdare manufacturers mainly support windows with their drivers and software developers support windows with their software. After all, most PCs run windows.

Eventually, windows is indispensible not entirely on it's own merit but because of all the dependencies on it due to it's preinstallation on most PCs. Microsoft now has tremendous leverage to price windows how it likes, include a certain amount of end user unfriendly features and bundle otehr software with the OS to stamp out competitors (such as IE versus Netscape and Windows Media Player versus others).

Windows is a horrible monopoly resulting from historical accident not from free market forces. That's not to say windows itself is entirely bad software but its lopsided dominance is entirely bad for everyone.

While the suggested measure might help mitigate this, it might have unintended consequencies and strikes me as a bit impractical. It probably woudl be better to madate that device manufacturers release documentation sufficient to implment interfaces (drivers) to other software systems. However, even this has some problematic details.

My approach will be to build my own system and carefully choose supported harwdare. Hopefully enough people will learn about alternative operating systems to create a niche demand. It's probably the best we can hope for and things seem to be looking up in certain ways.

Nessa
January 8th, 2008, 08:39 AM
If the software is free, sure.

HermanAB
January 8th, 2008, 08:42 AM
Hmm, how about buying a cell phone that won't work because there is no OS loaded on it? or a microwave oven, or a washing machine, or a router...

The market for embedded devices is orders of magnitude larger than the market for dinky desktop systems.

ugm6hr
January 8th, 2008, 08:44 AM
Hmm, how about buying a cell phone that won't work because there is no OS loaded on it? or a microwave oven, or a washing machine, or a router...

The market for embedded devices is orders of magnitude larger than the market for dinky desktop systems.

My point exactly. See post 193:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4091974&postcount=193

jespdj
January 8th, 2008, 10:49 AM
I think it is nonsense to ban bundling OSes with computer hardware. The average computer user should not need to be bothered with separately buying and installing the operating system himself / herself.

What should be made illegal are dirty tactics which are used by companies like Microsoft, who are pressing vendors in all kinds of ways to sell Windows with all computers they sell.

The consumer should have a fair choice for the operating system and I think it would be a good idea if vendors were legally obliged to inform their clients that Microsoft Windows is not the only OS. There should be no default choice for the operating system when you buy a new computer.

bufsabre666
January 8th, 2008, 10:56 AM
it should be banned to an extent, they should offer you a choice of operating systems or none at all

and even if they package it with windows it shouldnt have the bloatware, no norton ((you need a program to remove norton from your computer, doesnt that make it spyware by definition?)) or anything else thats free then you have to buy or that they inflate the cost with like an old computer i had came with windvd

bomanizer
January 8th, 2008, 10:56 AM
If we are talking about enabling fair competition in the PC and OS market, then in my opinion the whole thing boils down to two things:

1. open hardware and/or releasing hardware specs -> driver support
2. general awareness

Done Right
January 8th, 2008, 01:35 PM
If we are talking about enabling fair competition in the PC and OS market, then in my opinion the whole thing boils down to two things:

1. open hardware and/or releasing hardware specs -> driver support
2. general awareness

Agree
But as a computer shop owner i can see how lazy computer users have become, most have forgotten that they need to type in comands for winblows aswell .
And the reason i am looking at ubuntu is to give my customers a choise, they are sick of viruses & having to put there hand in their pocket every time some selfconcerning pr*ck desides to write a virus.

oh and the anti virus companies what a joke, between the virus writers and the absolute lack of support from anti virus companies no wonder windows has so many problems.
as for bying a preconfugued computer with winblows not naming companies YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!!!
In the computer industrie you have the choise to get exactly what you want, from scratch no worry about getting refund for a os you didnt want in the first place.

on the subject of linux os we need tv & radio press releases get it in the public eye so they can make a informed choice.
the bundling i dont agree with at all is un-proven free ware or 30 day trial, 30 day trials are a sucker punch to the unsuspecting.EG nortons anivirus.
We all have a responcibility to make choices for ourselfs and live with consequences, then learn from it.

Pevichaey5
January 8th, 2008, 01:44 PM
MIcrosoft signed a deal with ibm a while ago to make it illegal to buy a pc without an os

this was ruled out a few years ago so pc manufacturers can already choose what os to put onto their machines

the fact that manufacturers sony and acer in their warranty policy, you void the warranty if you change the os, which is completely wrong, as linux doesn't brake hardware

manufacturers like hp already offer linux for their machines, but i haven't yet seen one in store, either managers don't think it will sell, or hp only offer them via their website

read this (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39289241,00.htm)

R_U_Q_R_U
January 8th, 2008, 02:04 PM
Hey, guess what? I own a Dell. Yeah! IT CAME WITH WINDOWS! HOOORAY. My parents were ever so happy, with an operating system they've known for most of their computer related days. An operating system, which, effortlessly, allows them to browse the Internet, share pictures, and talk to people.

But hey, the little voice in my head is nagging.

"Do you want to give Linux a shot? Once I set it up it can do the same things you're used to."

"Okay."

Holy crap, a choice!

But guess what? It turns out Linux didn't work out for them. It wasn't quite what they were used to so they went back. Choice.

And now, Dell even offers Linux with your PC purchases, and you can return the COA to the vendors and get a refund.

...what's the problem?

Oh, and before I forget, read this carefully: Microsoft is not a monopoly. You might want to look up the definition of the words you use.

~Loke:

Give it up, man. The Linux community is decidedly leftist. They do not understand what the free market is or what the real meaning of a monopoly is. They want to use the force of government to tell private companies how to do business, what they can sell, how much they can sell and so forth.

The people in this community have no understating of property rights or economic freedom. They think a private company called Microsoft controls the universe and is "evil."

A monopoly can only exist when the force of state power limits entry. For example, in the USA first class mail can BY LAW only be delivered by the US Postal Service. There is no choice. You can not offer a FOSS version of First Class Mail. If you try you go to jail!

Microsoft has no such "monopoly power" no matter how much the toadies in the socialist EU claim they do. Anyone can produce an operating system, offer it for free or sell it with no fear of being charged with a crime. Microsoft can not FORCE you to buy its products, use its products or even look at its products.

People are free to buy and use whatever they want in they way of operating systems.

All this talk about using government power to force private companies to offer products they do not want to sell is just ignorant and sad.

erfahren
January 8th, 2008, 03:42 PM
well said R_U_Q_R_U

I think people are looking at this wrong. The OEM computer manufactures are in the business to make money, they figure that they can reach a bigger consumer base by having a popular OS preinstalled and ready to use. These days they also make some of their money bundling trialware with the PCs - they wouldn't be able to do that if there was no OS

If anyone wants to assert that this is bad business and even bad for consumers - look at the price of a basic, functional, laptop these days. The price of manufactured computers has been driven down to the point to where many people can afford them who otherwise wouldn't. Personally, I think thats a good thing.

They also couldn't just use their basic OEM OS install on every computer they make of a certain model. It keeps production costs (and warranty support costs) down to make every computer of a certain model exactly the same (just like Henry Ford was able to make the automobile cheap enough to where more people could afford one).

(As far as Dell selling PCs without OSs or with Ubuntu - was that out of benevolence or just a new marketing strategy to improve their image after some very bad press they recieved that drove down their stock prices?)

In short here, contrary to what many here insist - forcing those companies to not bundle would drive up the costs of PCs.

popch
January 8th, 2008, 03:52 PM
In short here, contrary to what many here insist - forcing those companies to not bundle would drive up the costs of PCs.

.. until one manufacturer found a way to reliably deploy his PCs with and without a bundled OS in a manner which does not raise costs. Then he would gain a market advantage hereby which would quickly evaporate because all others would follow suit.

erfahren
January 8th, 2008, 05:35 PM
.. until one manufacturer found a way to reliably deploy his PCs with and without a bundled OS in a manner which does not raise costs. Then he would gain a market advantage hereby which would quickly evaporate because all others would follow suit.
my question is simple:

why should they have to "find a way"?

What's wrong with the free-market system? The manufacturers provide a product that the majority of consumers want at a price that the majority of consumers are willing to pay.

Its not just about "not raising costs"! Again, they make very little profit off the hardware itself. Manufacturers need to make a profit or they wouldn't be in business.

The computer industry isn't the only one around that makes profit in a similar fashion. The auto industry sells cars with little mark-up and makes the bulk of their profit from "collision" parts (and extended warranties).

... it's just basic economics and makes many products more affordable for the average consumer.

bomanizer
January 8th, 2008, 06:07 PM
...they are sick of viruses & having to put there hand in their pocket every time some selfconcerning pr*ck desides to write a virus...

This has been my marketing strategy for friends & family. So far, no one is interested enough to take a dive to the deep end, BUT everyone gets this and everyone can see the benefit of a virus resistant system by default. I think it appeals to the basic needs on some level. Generally I'd sell *nix and the like as "teh internet device for safe surfing and online stuff". Ubuntu has potential and it needs a clear marketing profile, if the adoption rate is the desired thing. (seems to be)

Stex
January 8th, 2008, 06:09 PM
I agree to ~LoKe on the first page to an extent (a good argument, despite cocky first line). From the point of view of the end user bundling windows is perfect. The reality is you don't spend anything for windows: what the vendors pay for windows they get back for putting crudware on it.

The problem is the business point of view really, because at the end of the day they're still giving microsoft money even if we don't want windows.

Vendors should be forced to offer a blank option in my opinion. But I'd still go for windows as it'd be free as it's nice to have a backup that's been guaranteed to work on my hardware.

RebounD11
January 8th, 2008, 06:10 PM
I'm not against this, as long as the customer is given the choice to buy the hardware with or without the bundled OS.

popch
January 8th, 2008, 06:10 PM
my question is simple:

why should they have to "find a way"?

What's wrong with the free-market system? The manufacturers provide a product that the majority of consumers want at a price that the majority of consumers are willing to pay..

My comment about finding a way was a response to your statement that forcing those companies to not bundle would drive up the costs of PCs. Thus, it was not a comment on the free market system but on the outcome of a restriction some want imposed on said market system.


Its not just about "not raising costs"! Again, they make very little profit off the hardware itself. Manufacturers need to make a profit or they wouldn't be in business.

The computer industry isn't the only one around that makes profit in a similar fashion. The auto industry sells cars with little mark-up and makes the bulk of their profit from "collision" parts (and extended warranties).

... it's just basic economics and makes many products more affordable for the average consumer.

That's a very robust market model which has been in use for decades, to say the least. Razor blade holders, ink jet printers and computers are practically given away in order to generate sales of razor blades, printing inks and software.

This makes Dell, Asus, HP and others into sellers of 'razor blade holders' with vanishing margins, all with the purpose of facilitating sales of software products with non-vanishing margins, to say the least.

That is a very straightforward application of the free market system.

It does not. however, make products more affordable for the consumer. In that market model the consumer buys software products such as Office or Virus Protection or Spyware Filters at ridiculously high unit costs, only to get a minuscule discount on the computer hardware.

~LoKe
January 8th, 2008, 06:40 PM
The problem is the business point of view really, because at the end of the day they're still giving microsoft money even if we don't want windows.

Microsoft has already sold batches of COA's to businesses like Dell and HP. The money has changed hands and has been spent before you even order the computer. But I can agree with you in some ways.

However, I personally don't mind giving Microsoft my money. I have no problem with MS, in fact, I have much appreciation for them. Competition drives us, it has always been this way. The more Microsoft comes out with, the more the Linux community will counter with. This is good for me, hey, for us, don't you agree?

I'd rather not see Windows go out of business, it's not in my best interest (despite not using windows based computers), nor is it in the best interest of the general population. I just don't share the blind rage that some people here do...

erfahren
January 8th, 2008, 11:30 PM
My comment about finding a way was a response to your statement that forcing those companies to not bundle would drive up the costs of PCs. Thus, it was not a comment on the free market system but on the outcome of a restriction some want imposed on said market system.

That's a very robust market model which has been in use for decades, to say the least. Razor blade holders, ink jet printers and computers are practically given away in order to generate sales of razor blades, printing inks and software.

This makes Dell, Asus, HP and others into sellers of 'razor blade holders' with vanishing margins, all with the purpose of facilitating sales of software products with non-vanishing margins, to say the least.

That is a very straightforward application of the free market system.

It does not. however, make products more affordable for the consumer. In that market model the consumer buys software products such as Office or Virus Protection or Spyware Filters at ridiculously high unit costs, only to get a minuscule discount on the computer hardware.
I actually couldn't have made my own point any better myself. I can get a "razor blade holder" for dirt-cheap - and then it's up to me how many and of what quality of "razor blades" I need and want to buy.

The discount on the computer hardware is not "minuscule" (not here at least).

How about this for an example: about a year and a half ago I got a (budget) Acer Aspire 3610 series notebook for about $500(US) with WinXP - 6 months ago I dropped it and broke the display - a new display costs $300 (http://www.screentekinc.com/Acer__Aspire__3610_Series-series-laptops-lcd-screens.shtml) (unless I could track down a refurbished one - which was difficult) - there was an Acer Aspire 5100 advertised for $400(US) and had preinstalled Vista Home Premium and a DVD burner (my old one didn't). - granted it's a low-end laptop, but for $400 the price couldn't be beat (especially taking the circumstances into account)!

Also, now that you mention it - I also got a Lexmark printer/scanner with it, for free - yes, ink is expensive for it (I haven't yet bought any), but the scanner has come in handy.

(Actually, the following week I saw a nicer one advertised - HP I think - for a little less even. It came loaded with all kinds of trialware though- which would have needed to be immediately uninstalled.)

So far I have spent $0 on software.

Most home users really have no need for full fledged office suites, and retail internet security software only costs an average home user about $40(US)/yr.

I spent $400 (€272) on a brand-new notebook computer - yet the assertion is that added restrictions on the manufacturers will in some way benefit the consumer. How exactly?

inversekinetix
January 9th, 2008, 12:38 AM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.


Someone already said this is the best post they have read in this forum and I have to agree.

I've not been a member long and have personally stopped using ubuntu for the time being, I still come here to see whats happening and continue to learn a little. It does get a little tiresome though, watching the windows attacks, the same things repeated over and over again.

People do have a choice, they can have windows or linux preinstalled on a computer, as far as I know (i may be wrong) you can't install macOs on a pc(without some hacking), youre restricted to buying the hardware from mac. I don't know if you can buy a mac sans OS and then use bootcamp to install windows on it, I think you have to have the mac OS preinstalled then pay (some flavors of linux exempt) for another os to put on it if you want to have a choice of OS. I never see anyone whining about that, its always the same, windows hate.


In response to the OP, yes OSs should be bundled, but you should have the choice of all OSs that CAN work on the hardware.

Methuselah
January 9th, 2008, 03:18 AM
I don't believe there shiuld be a ban on bundling.

However, I think some people are confusing cause and effect.
Microsoft's OSes are not bundled because they are popular, they are popular because they have always been bundled with the hardware.

I don't remember a time when there was free market competition between OSes with consumers overwhelmingly chosing Windows so that hardware manufacturers saw the sense in bundling it. Quite to the contrary, DOS/Windows has always been the defacto standard PC OS. It's its birthright so to speak.

However, we are seeing more linux/*BSD friendly moves from hardware manufacturers which is very encouraging for people who want to build computers and not run windows. Cheap internet/productivity appliances that come with alternative OSs preinstalled is porbably the best way for linux to make headway.

~LoKe
January 9th, 2008, 03:33 AM
However, I think some people are confusing cause and effect.
Microsoft's OSes are not bundled because they are popular, they are popular because they have always been bundled with the hardware.

Windows wasn't the first operating system...at one point they won and got the market share, and at that time, there was a very realistic and acceptable reason. However, because of that, it's still the case today. Unfortunately, with one operating system having most of the desktop marketshare, more hardware and software manufactures decided to focus the mass of their efforts on it. Why not? From a business stand point, it's the best way to go.

But now....it's time to start looking down the other road for a change. We're already seeing it, and this is something a lot of people aren't willing to admit or acknowledge. Even with the giant being in the lead, manufactures are still working on alternatives for UNIX based systems. nVidia being one of the major ones, and ATi doing their best to follow.

I really don't understand the complaint anymore. Bundling isn't the end of the world and it's certainly not able to get any worse. From here on, it's only going to get better for us. Businesses like Dell and HP are already making their move to Linux...isn't that what we want? A market shift won't happen overnight; patience is something I would have expected from a community like this. Wait it out and sooner than later we'll be in even closer competition and then, we'll truly be able to earn back the marketshare.

Let's do it right, rather than abusing ridiculous laws to "steal" it back. The *NIX community defines itself by the ability to choose. Why would we abandon that by eliminating the choice from others? Linux is starting to show its worth to the general public, and I foresee a great shift within the near future. Ride it out and it'll be for the best.

Methuselah
January 9th, 2008, 04:13 AM
Windows wasn't the first operating system...at one point they won and got the market share, and at that time, there was a very realistic and acceptable reason.


Yes, and with that initial victory it earned a right of perpetual predominance on the PC as we know it.
Even if there are realities that make windows unsuitable, it's ubiquity will tend to compel its usage.



However, because of that, it's still the case today.


That's why I say its dominance is historical.
Present-day alternatives will have artificial limitations simply because of not being Windows.
Availability of device drivers is one example.
This state of affairs makes the establishment of robust competition extrememly difficult though there are some positive moves on this front though.



Unfortunately, with one operating system having most of the desktop marketshare, more hardware and software manufactures decided to focus the mass of their efforts on it. Why not? From a business stand point, it's the best way to go.


That's precisely why one operating system having most of the desktop market share is a bad idea. Sure, it makes sense for the maker of that OS to keep things that way, it makes sense for PC makers to pre-install it, it makes sense for device manufacturers to prefer writing drivers for it, it makes sense for software manufacturers to make programs for it but it takes cents from consumers and creates artificial constraints that limit choice.

I'm not totally anti-windows and wouldn't want it to go away entirely. However a more equitable distribution of market share would result in better prices, more consumer orientation and (out of necessity) a greater focus on standards and interoperability.

However, I don't think banning preinstallation is the way to achieve this. That just seems draconian and impractical. I do think loosening the windows grip is worth achieving though, and I support all reasonable efforts to provide more options.

Meep3D
January 9th, 2008, 04:34 AM
I think the more pertinent question is why are more manufacturers not including Linux by default? MS can't compete with 'free', unless they give Windows licenses to OEM's - which I doubt. Any competitor can simply come in below and undercut the MS shops as free is as cheap as it gets.

The argument about vendor lock-in doesn't exactly hold water either as apple do a great trade in non-Windows PC with a marketshare that dwarfs the Linux userbase. They even successfully made money selling non x86 kit.

Why is there no company ala Apple selling exclusively Linux based gear and doing well? I only know of a few Linux only shops and they are mainly web based and not exactly huge. Why is it _not_ the year of desktop Linux?

If you need legislation to gain market traction on something that your giving away for free then I honestly think that pinning the blame on a competitor that actually charges money seems a bit like denial. Sure MS are not the most honest company in the world but laying the blame entirely at their feet is rather naive.

dlegend
January 9th, 2008, 04:38 AM
LOL the ignorance here is astounding.

You're buying a computer from someone, and they have every right to ship it with the software of their choice. You buy from HP, eMachines, Compac, Sony, you get Windows. That's their choice, and you're free to uninstall it.

If you're so uptight about the little crap like this, buy from Dell and get Ubuntu or Fedora pre-installed.

What, not good enough for you? Build your own computer.

Christ, you all act like Microsoft and Windows are evil. It's a choice, and it's one that they decided to offer you at no extra cost. Don't forget; with or without Windows, it'll cost you the same. This way you have the choice to keep what they gave you, or use something else.

Would you have them ship everyone a computer with absolutely no operating system? Or just send them on their way with the installation disk of their choice? How many people know how to install an operating system? How many people give a damn about Linux?

Personally, I'm glad they ship computers with Windows unless asked to do otherwise. The majority understand how Windows works, and it does exactly what they want it to. Those capable enough to know how to install Linux will do so, and there's no one stopping them.

Get off your tirade against Windows. Attacking it is the complete opposite of what Linux stands for.

Well said. I was thinking about the same thing when I read this topic.

Methuselah
January 9th, 2008, 04:38 AM
I think the more pertinent question is why are more manufacturers not including Linux by default?

Sounds reasonable, if a big explostion but the PC indsutry back at ground zero.

Meep3D
January 9th, 2008, 04:44 AM
It's also a stupid, overly interventionist idea. What's next? Demanding mobile phones be shipped OS free? Demanding that your MP3 player will require you to install your own firmware? Demanding that you should have to install your own codecs on your DVD player.

People want to buy something they can just take out of the box and use. Anyone who has ever worked with tech support knows what a disaster getting everyone to buy & install their OS post facto would be.

It's also entirely unenforceable. Businesses would spring up to install your OS for a charge, which would then migrate into a 'we'll buy you a computer and install your OS for a charge' all in one deals - which leaves you back at square one.

dlegend
January 9th, 2008, 04:54 AM
It's also a stupid, overly interventionist idea. What's next? Demanding mobile phones be shipped OS free? Demanding that your MP3 player will require you to install your own firmware? Demanding that you should have to install your own codecs on your DVD player.

People want to buy something they can just take out of the box and use. Anyone who has ever worked with tech support knows what a disaster getting everyone to buy & install their OS post facto would be.

It's also entirely unenforceable. Businesses would spring up to install your OS for a charge, which would then migrate into a 'we'll buy you a computer and install your OS for a charge' all in one deals - which leaves you back at square one.

Agreed! I also believe it is the vendor's right to do what they please with what they are selling. I mean there are tons of vendors and you can't tell them what they can and can't sell. If you don't want an OS bundled with a computer, build your own! Nobody is forcing you to buy it! I am also pretty sure they do have vendors out there who do sell computers without operating systems bundled with them.

Meep3D
January 9th, 2008, 04:59 AM
Agreed! I also believe it is the vendor's right to do what they please with what they are selling. I mean there are tons of vendors and you can't tell them what they can and can't sell. If you don't want an OS bundled with a computer, build your own! Nobody is forcing you to buy it! I am also pretty sure they do have vendors out there who do sell computers without operating systems bundled with them.
Exactly. I never buy a computer with a pre-loaded OS because they generally pack it with crap and don't even give you the disks so you can do a clean install yourself. It's not like there is a shortage of shops that will sell a bare system. Hell even Dell sells Linux.

Of course I normally install Windows on it, but that's another discussion :lolflag:

Methuselah
January 9th, 2008, 05:00 AM
I agree this proosal seems like a knee-jerk, somewhat poorly thought out reaction. However, their hearts are in the right place. :)

You don't realise how much the "windows everywhere" phenomenon LIMITS choice until you decide, for whatever reason, you no longer want to run it.

This coming from someone who has used windows primarily for most of the years I've had a PC and am typing this from Windows XP and Internet Explorer.

kopinux
January 9th, 2008, 05:15 AM
i think i like the way it is, but if theyre gonna bundle OS/software it should be free like the 15 day trial version windows.

Flying caveman
January 9th, 2008, 06:03 AM
The very idea of a "bundle" implies that the hardware and software are separate. If the vendor only offers one choice, they shouldn't call it a bundle. I don't see anything wrong with bundling itself, Usually with a bundle, the products are complimentary, and are offered at a discount when purchased together. its impossible to tell if you're getting a discount or not unless you can price each item separately.

If PC vendors sold the computer with a retail version of the OS, then it would be a bundle. but if they include a version that will only work with that computer, it really isn't a "bundle" and they shouldn't call it that.

Jammy4041
January 9th, 2008, 08:45 AM
I think it is up to the user to download what they want. If they want to install Ubuntu, it is there choice. However, if the OEM wants to do that it is there choice. The OEM chooses waht they think is best for the customer. However, banning OSes on computers preinstalled could have a huge impact on OSes, generally.

And what would become of the mac?

erfahren
January 9th, 2008, 09:18 AM
And what would become of the mac?
well, I'm sure the law would read something like:

"Any computing device that has an operating system without the words "Microsoft" or "Windows" would be exempt from this legislation."

that sounds much more nonrestrictive than:

"A computing device cannot be sold pre-installed with Microsoft Windows."

- doesn't it?

Ocxic
January 9th, 2008, 10:55 AM
vendors should offer a Choice of operating system, vendors usually only support hardware, it's up to Ubuntu / Conical to offer support for Ubuntu, and it's up to Apple to support OS X and it's Microsoft that must support Windows.

vendors usually only support hardware, and limited OS support anyway, besides people should be calling Microsoft tech and not the vendors at all, maybe then Microsoft will shape up it's OS.

Xbehave
January 9th, 2008, 11:13 AM
yes, or atleast only offering pre-installed OS's with hardware! it would be much better if you could always opt out of any OS, including apple and linux.
im not anti-windows i just object to being forced to pay for it on my laptop, (especially as it refuses to install).

sure companies would then be free to charge whatever they want for the no-windows version so it may / may not be worth it but it would be a choice!

I know i can go to dell, but as my dad wastes so much money there (1000 for a desktop that even at optimum performance can only just build beat a 500 build, and in everyday usage is slower than a 300 3 year old machine), so im not keen to shop there!

TenPlus1
January 9th, 2008, 11:17 AM
When buying a new computer/laptop, it's usually a lot easier if you can turn it on and boot into an Os, so you can start using your new system... The only thing I would say is that vendors should ASK what operating system you'd like installed... Windows XP/Vista... Linux Ubuntu/Redhat/etc.

Nunu
January 9th, 2008, 11:32 AM
you should have a choice in the OS you get when buying a PC. You have a choice on the color of your car why not the flavor of your OS.

Xbehave
January 9th, 2008, 11:34 AM
When buying a new computer/laptop, it's usually a lot easier if you can turn it on and boot into an Os, so you can start using your new system... The only thing I would say is that vendors should ASK what operating system you'd like installed... Windows XP/Vista... Linux Ubuntu/Redhat/etc.

you cant force then to offer every OS so its pointless.
it is easier so in fairness they should be allowed to offer as many/few as they want
the best thing is to offer no OS that way nobody is forced to pay for anything they dont want!

ubutufan
January 18th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Almost everyone is aware that ms predominant market share, is largely attributed to the pre-installation of the operating system on almost every computer sold throughout the world. Why and how this has been achieved, is not to the interest of this thread.
Question
What would be your reaction if it was to be LEGALLY forbidden to computer manufacturers and or retailers to sell their devices with pre-installed operating systems but instead give the consumer the legal right to choose?

Techwiz
January 18th, 2008, 10:39 PM
It would be fine with me, but it might be hard for people who don't know what an OS is/ only know one OS to pick.

happysmileman
January 18th, 2008, 10:41 PM
It should be optional I think, like if you ask for one without an OS they have to sell you it, but if you make no choice about it, it's allowed for them to put Windows on by default

PriceChild
January 18th, 2008, 10:41 PM
I really don't like the idea of that.

Why should people not be able to sell bundled products? Especially when it leads to offers and savings?

spamzilla
January 18th, 2008, 10:44 PM
It would suit me fine as I don't want to pay for any M$ rubbish nor do I want to pay someone to install Ubuntu for me, as I want to set things up as I want them.

btw I ordered this laptop I'm using witout an OS :D

PriceChild
January 18th, 2008, 11:40 PM
I think something else that should be taken into account, is that there is no reason why anyone has to sell something to you.

Most normally also reserve the right to deny sale for whatever reason.

vexorian
January 18th, 2008, 11:45 PM
They should just prohibit subventions and allow you not to license the OS.

Right now retailers are doing silly things like including Linux by default, they should include nothing, really. And if they include Linux by default they should try not to use a ballnux distro for which you need to pay the MS-tax, If I was to pay that tax I would do it for windows, really.

Subventions are the problem here, companies filling the computer with crap for a price...

mmichalik
January 18th, 2008, 11:54 PM
I think PriceChild has hit the nail on the head.

Why would you want to stifle business in any fashion? Not to mention that the ability for a company to do and sell what they want to do (within legal limits) is fundamental to the entire concept of capitalism and the free market.

What's not being pointed out here is that you DO have a choice. And that is, if you don't like what they are selling, don't buy it from them. Buy it from someone else.

I would build a white box long before I bought a name brand desktop. Laptops are a little harder but........ that's starting to change as well.

SZF2001
January 19th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Whats that website called, system76 or something? Sells Ubuntu pre installed. Expensive, but it seems to be worth it. So really there is choice in what and who you buy from, so it's not big deal.

Bruce M.
January 19th, 2008, 02:07 AM
Not sure about the legal issues here, but I would think that the M$ lawyers have gone through the contracts with a fine tooth comb.

For me the answer is easy, purchase a custom built computer without a hard drive. Then order one or two HD's separately. Mind you, that's not good for people that don't want to tinker inside the box. But I'd have no problem at all.

The last "brand" name PC I had, in fact the only one, was a Commodore XT. From then on it was buy the parts and put it together. This one, my old P-III, was custom built from parts I chose, and I installed my own W2K (a legal version).

I wonder what would happen if you took an Ubuntu Live CD to a computer store and asked to try it in, let's see --> that machine, please. Explain to them, it will not access the HD, and you do NOT want Windows, but you need to know if the machine is compatible with Linux before you buy it.

I should try that some day!

smartboyathome
January 19th, 2008, 02:14 AM
Whats that website called, system76 or something? Sells Ubuntu pre installed. Expensive, but it seems to be worth it. So really there is choice in what and who you buy from, so it's not big deal.

There is also ZaReason, which sells laptops at a decent price, really.

popch
January 19th, 2008, 02:16 AM
I wonder what would happen if you took an Ubuntu Live CD to a computer store and asked to try it in, let's see --> that machine, please. Explain to them, it will not access the HD, and you do NOT want Windows, but you need to know if the machine is compatible with Linux before you buy it.

I should try that some day!

I did try it. The salespeople were quite interested. They had heard of Linux before but never seen it.

One of those trials resulted in my buying the machine, and the salesperson was quite impressed that you can just insert a CD and run a Linux without much ado.

The other trial was a moral success. The machine did not even properly boot. The salesperson was not visibly impressed by Linux, and I did not buy the machine.

Both cases took places in department stores.

gletob
January 19th, 2008, 02:34 AM
Does anybody ever read the frickin windows EULAs they state that if you buy an OEM machine with windows on it and refuse to accept the EULA then its the OEM's responsibility to refund the money and yours to remove windows.

raymac46
January 19th, 2008, 02:34 AM
Don't we have that legal right now? I just went to a clone shop in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, had them put the system together without an O/S and installed Ubuntu myself.
Maybe I can't buy a Dell in Canada with Linux but I can still get a working system.