If MS gave away Windows for home use, would it....

change your opinion of Windows vs Linux? Curious...maybe this should be a poll.

 

Good answer. I was just thinking if I was *cough* Steve Ballmer, and wanted to slow down the Open Source encroachment, I would consider that...don't know how many, but probably for many it would change some attitudes....I use it for gaming also btw.

This is rhetorical....don't want to get into numbers $$$

 

Most likely not. I've been using Linux as my primary OS on my netbook and server for a few years now and I am more comfortable with it. All of my computers have come with licenses for Windows, so it's not really too big of a deal to revert back if needed for stuff ....

 

Exactly, all our computers do and if a user goes over to Linux they would be lucky to recoup $50 from for the unused Windows key. That's not even something that all retailers and manufacturers will cooperate with (doesn't the refund actually come from the manu?) and not something many consumers would know about and/or want to put the effort into doing.

Though Windows still has some programs Linux just can't copy or easily run, unless you need these programs, users don't need Windows or have a reason to use it other than that it's what came with the computer or personal preference. And oddly enough, they'll have no problem conforming to Windows 7 when moving up from XP, but learning an intuitive & logical OS that boots in 1/3 the time, is less needy for maintenance and security, and consumes much less computer resources is out of the question. But then again, casual users don't know/care about that stuff.

"Computer resources? Is that what we're invading Japan for?"

Sweaty Steve can do whatever he wants. Less kiddies peeing in the Linux gene pool I see as a good thing. Skype and Flash are the only real headaches (that I've come across) the open source world must conform to. Mono programs have non-mono equivalents while cross platform support for file types, communication protocols and media codecs is huge and always developing. Linux developers are incredibly good at what they do so it makes all Steve's huffing and puffing into a humorous act of corporate epilepsy.

 

My answer would be no. I have never disliked MS and actually i'm amazed their stuff works so well with the millions of different configurations around the world their OS must work with.

I actually like Windows 7, very little that I dislike with it. Apple OTOH I dislike and would never buy another product from them. So why do I use Linux or made an attempt to learn it?

Because it's different and something new to learn. It's also a fall back that if one day MS were no longer around I would not be forced to use Apple products.

 

It would change my opinion about microsocft for the better, but id stick with linux. Why? 100% open source, and the general operation and feel of linux just fits me better. Features like the cube/desktop wall allows me to work much better and efficiently when compared to windows. There's a lot more reasons why Id stick to linux but ill leave it at that. But yeah ms would get a bit more respect from me if they did that.

 

The cost of windows has nothing to do with why I run linux 99% of the time. I administrate farms of unix / linux servers with the odd windows machine thrown in. It's far easier to work on unix from another unix than from windows. All the tools I'm used to having are just there in unix / linux. Windows feels at best half-finished in comparison.

OTOH, I do use windows all the time, my desktop at home ONLY runs windows and it's my main gaming rig. And if I need to run windows software it goes on there. But gaming is pretty much its reason for living.

 

The only problem with ordering from a boutique retailer like System 76 is that you lose out on economies of scale. Sure, you get the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't pay for a Windows license that you don't want / don't plan to use. I'm not knocking that. But from a consumer's perspective, it seems like you very rarely save money by ordering a notebook w/ linux preinstalled.

One exception in the U.S. is the Dell V130, where it's noticeably less expensive to order the same machine w/ linux. Of course, if you want one of the 30,000 other Dell models/configurations, you're out of luck.

 

I'm of two minds about Microsoft. On one hand, I have tremendous respect for the engineers who work on the Windows product team -- they are able to produce a massive, somewhat-consistent OS that works across a tremendous mix of hardware and has some incredible backwards compatibility.

On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of engineering talent is being used to produce something that, in many ways, is inferior by design. The backwards compatibility is a good example: it's quite impressive that Windows 7 is capable of running software from nearly two decades prior -- but said backwards compatibility adds tremendously to the complexity and (in many cases) the attack surface of the OS. I'm sure that many of the devs hate this. They probably would love nothing more than to rip out large swaths of Win32 and start from scratch... but since that'd be suicide for their business they can't.

Even the low-level tech's not safe from the business folks at Microsoft. NT at its core is a really slick kernel. It's one of the few hybrid kernels that seems to have been coherently designed by people who can only be described as masters of their art. Unfortunately, it too got perverted by the management side of things -- the graphics stack is a great example of this. NT 3.1 -- released in *1993* -- ran the graphics stack in userspace. If it crashed, no biggie, just kick it and carry on. Then the business side of things got their say, and in NT 4.0 GDI was pulled into kernel space (ostensibly to improve responsiveness, although it's suggested it was done so to increase lock-in), kicking off the decade or so of GPU-induced BSODs that we've come to know and love. It took them until NT 6 (Vista) to remedy this.

But I digress. I'd better stop before I get nostalgic for OS/2 -- 'cause the only solution to that affliction is my trust BOFH cattle prod...

So in answer to the OP's question: would I run Windows if it were free? Probably not. It doesn't really fill a need in my daily computing workflow. My servers run FreeBSD or Linux depending on the application. My media center runs Linux. My media front-ends run a custom embedded config of Debian. My work laptops run Linux (since my job involves writing software that is deployed on Linux servers) as do my personal ones. I run all that not just because it's free, but because it's flexible. Several of the front-ends and other purpose-built boxes that I've got have only a tiny amount of space on their root partition. I couldn't even fit XP Embedded there if I wanted to! But I can fit a Linux install, because I can modify it. I can strip out everything but the sound and networking stuff that I need, fit the whole mess on 128 MB of flash and still have plenty of room to spare.

I respect Microsoft a lot. I think their main products (Windows, Office) are excellent pieces of software. I think their researchers are incredibly talented -- some of the stuff that comes out of Microsoft Research is absolutely cutting-edge -- and their engineers have done an incredibly good job of modernizing Windows despite it's astounding complexity.

I like Microsoft a lot... they simple don't provide anything that I need.

 

I used to tink I needed a windows computer but then I found wine and complimented it with a VM.

As for supporting networks, I find linux does a MUCH better job at managing IT then windows can. I manage both server 2003 and linux as well as xp and win 7 boxes and going to linux made me alot more efficient at my job.

It truly is a feat to make an OS fit so many pegs. But honestly I cannot see, in my tiny little world, where linux cannot do the same things as well or better then windows outside of gaming.

But again they have made an OS that fits the worlds lion share of computing needs very well and credit must be given. As for their researchers and computer scientists while great, that is to be expected with a seemingly unlimited budget and as you expressed very well is also their downfall. Lots of funding to make great things, but also too much money to fund management that likes to dip their hands into something they are not qualified to.

 

Most likely no, since I have no use for Windows at all. I don't play games, and all the apps I need work under Linux.

 

Not at all, I would still continue to push free software as the better platform. Simply put, because it is. Not from a zealot standpoint/fanboy stand point, either. It just works better. Problems are fixed faster, features added faster, etc. Also, that's not including the gained ability to actually own my own software.

 

Beside the fanaticism part , I use it simply because I feel like my data is safer and easier to recover in linux than in Windows. But, like I said, I'm a gamer but I do need Windows in a VM for tax progs.

However, I personally would have a better attitude towards M$ because I would feel like they were trying to give something back, simply put

 

Give back? They didn't take anything.
They hired Dave Cutler(who wrote VMS) to write NT.
They used the BSD network stack but rewrote it in Windows Vista.
The stuff they took is practically nothing unlike the fruity company.
I have nothing for or against M$ they are just other company.

 

Agreed. They're just like any other company IMO. They have every rights to sell their idea or product at what ever price they want. Flawed products sometimes, but useful enough nevertheless. You hear stories of how IBM cheated to control the server market, and nobody bashes them.

Besides, if they didn't produce an admittedly flawed product (Win 95), nobody will be talking about Linux because no body will be using computers, probably for a few more decades at least (the 'personal computer' will still progress, but at a slower pace). Computers would remain as niche tools for certain people. It would be too expensive. Linus Torvalds wouldn't be playing with minix kernel, and Linux wouldn't exist.

If MS produced a strong stable capable server OS, I'd probably be using Windows as my main OS right now.

All this bashing of MS is over blown. $300 for an OS that makes personal computers easy to use is nothing. In the US, people pay thousands of $$ for beer alone every year, and what do they get out of it?

 

As far as I know, they rewrote the frontend, not the actual stack.

MS, historically, hasn't won because of superior products, they've won by using monopolistic practices.
Also, Windows barely existed when Torvalds started linux(It did, but barely).

 

I still have no angst towards Microsoft even if they cornered the OS market. Actually good for them as it added stability to a certain level of standardization to operating systems and computers in general.

One of the knocks against Linux are all the flavors. Some distros work for some while it may not work for the majority. I wouldn't want to fathom having little to no standards when buying a computer. The same goes for DirectX. I prefer OpenGL but the DX API at least allowed for a unification for graphics card makers.

The only company I do have an angst towards is Apple. I don't like how they operate especially being a former customer. The holier than thou, "we're perfect your not" is old and tiresome.

I do like choices like everyone else but maybe i'm in the minority here but I have no problems with MS leading the pack. I'll happily use Linux Mint in the future but I have no ill will towards MS.

 

It would not change my opinion at all because desktop Linux has never been practical for everyday use among the masses. Heck, even if MS gave Windows away for free for commercial server use, my opinion would still not change because Linux on servers is superior to Windows in more ways than just the price tag.

Ultimately I see Linux vs Windows as more of a desktop vs datacenter split than a free vs paid split.

 

Agree with rod, like it or not MS really brought pc use to the public AND set the standard for OS's. MacOS before OSX was simply terrible (on top of being expensive), and do you really think your mom wanted to compile her own kernel and log in via cli in order to check her email?

I think it's fine how it is now: windows for your average guy and gamer guy, apple for the hipster/rich kid/snob/"want to be different" guy, linux for advanced+ users. I use win7 quite a bit in order to game so if MS was on drugs and gave it away for free, you bet I'd use it. If linux fully supported all the games that windows does (or if devs made AAA games for linux), then we'd have a dilemma.

 

'Bashing' in the case of this thread is simply stating actual occurrences and experiences. Those who prefer Windows above all else can simply say in rebuttal, 'Well, if Linux develops a broken package, you can't update your system' or something about dependencies, grub and so on. And they would probably be correct. This can go back and forth all day but the fact is, MS is not known being the straightest shooter in corporate affairs.

But back to topic, The argument that Linux is so much more difficult to use than Windows is nowadays obselete. There are distros like Mint, OpenSUSE (though MS funs a part of Novell if that's of concern), Zorin and PCLinuxOS to name a few, which are a fully functional OS with different aesthetics but is still laid out somewhat 'Windows-ish' meaning task bar on the bottom, start menu bottom left, etc. For the casual user, it's no different than switching from a Droid to an iphone. Or for the older generations, going from VHS recording to a Tivo/DVD player.

Sit some computer illiterate people down at Mint and at then Windows 7. They can likely recognize the Firefox icon (hmm, that must be the interent), or they can find Solitaire, or see under the Evolution/Thunderbird icon the text says email (so it must be for email), Banshee audio player. The list goes on. You've got a user Downloads, Documents, Pictures/Videos, etc. folders. To someone who knows nothing about what is going on behind the GUI, they are essentially the same. A Mercedes isn't going be a carbon copy of a BMW so why expect that of it?

Another element to that is Windows and OSX are pretty different yet the amount of people 'swithching' to Macbooks these days is huge. Clearly the sheep are willing to learn, up to a point.

However with Windows and OSX being the front runners, that leaves Linux in the background to have all the open soruce software it wants, minimal amount of virus/malware/spyware/backdoor rumors problems when compared to MS. OSX i've really not dug into much so I can't comment there, but Linux can and shall remain the black magic that it is. Small teams of developers funded by sponsorships, donations and site advertisements consistently producing operating systems that are able to compete with (and sometimes, blow away) what's offered by a company that recorded nearly $19 billion in profts for 2010.

I'm fine with that and gladly donate my $300 to Linux developers.

 

No, not in software, just financially to students, whoever. They are rolling in capital.

 

It's been practical for many years now. It just hasn't been a 100% identical drop-in replacement for Windows and is thus often rejected right off the bat.

Is installing and configuring it practical for your average user? Nope. But then again, neither is installation and configuration of Windows. The difference is that the OEMs handle that part for the Windows users.

 

I'm the opposite. Apple's os back in the 90s was a lot better then it is now by a long shot.

Agreed. Familiarity is huge factor as to why windows dominates. My mom refuses to leave xp. She modeled it after 98se for easier use and familiarity. She loves it and it works. I've shown her linux and she said "cool. But not for me". Heck I barely got her to accept windows 7 on the alienware m11x I gave her.

As for ease of configuring, well I disagree with that. Linux may have more questions then windows 7 but they can easily be automated. The real hard part to installing an os these days is to know how to boot from a cd. Pretty much all os install procedures these days are extremly easy to do.

 

Are you serious?
No protected memory and full pre-emptive multitasking and it is good?
Looking good doesn't mean it is good. It is primitive. Period. And that is why they needed to rewrite and borrow code because it is obsolete.
Windows NT was way more advance by a long shot.

 

Afair Linus coded Freax (the later Linux) in 1990/91, way before Win95.
Slackware is around since 1993 and its predecessor SLS was available in 1992, so Linux as a distribution was available before the first popular Windows.
Frankly I don't see any link between the very first versions of Linux and Win95 since Linus coded his own kernel because he couldn't get Minix. Too bad BSD wasn't free back then.
In the GDR of the late 1980s CAOS was a pretty widely used OS and afaik Atari systems were pretty popular in the FRG besides the C64.
So I agree that today's end-user IT market would look very different if MS and Windows hadn't existed, but I don't think it would be only for geeks. I think Apple would play a much bigger role and BeOS and OS/2 might have survived.

To answer the title question:
I personally wouldn't use Windows if it was free (of charge). I even would have been willing to pay extra to get my M6500 with RHEL instead of Windows even if I wouldn't have actually used RHEL.
I try not to buy systems that come with Windows preinstalled - not because I don't want to pay for it but because I dislike MS's behavior on the market and I don't want to support that. If they had reached their position by fair means I could respect that and wouldn't make the OS choice a political question, but they didn't, so I make it a political choice.
I bought my last Windows system in 2008 and I only accepted that because I knew somebody who needed a Windows license at that time. The netbook itself has never bootet Windows. Since then I bought a laptop and another netbook without Windows and I wouldn't have bought any of them with Windows.

 

Scary thought isn't it?

I did love OS/2, it was way ahead of the game.

 

they give it away for free. computers with windows + crapware are cheaper than computers with just a plain windows on it.
one has to remove the crapware afterwards, but they sure drive the cost down.

 

OS X isn't a 100% identical drop-in replacement for Windows either, yet many not-so-technically-inclined people are perfectly happy with making that switch.

Linux needs more of the commercial software packages that Windows users already know and love. Having 10000 open source alternatives that people have to decide between and learn all over again from scratch just isn't good enough. Of course, the way the Linux community views closed source binaries as a disease that needs to be quarantined doesn't help.

 

Indeed. A little marketing does wonders.

I don't think so. Linux needs apps that have the same features that Windows users expect. OS X doesn't have many of the same apps as Windows, but as you pointed out, people are content with it. Feature parity matters -- but let's face it: Netscape won from the grave, and simply having a good browser is most of the battle for average users. Past that you need decent photo/video support (check), e-mail clients that suck as much or less than Outlook (check), IM (check), the ability to manage and burn music (check), and a basic home office suite (check).

Complaining about the lack of choice is a little silly, since everything that I just described is already chosen for most users by their distro -- all of the major distros have a single program chosen, packaged, pre-installed, documented, and labeled for the aforementioned tasks.

Neither does hyperbole. I don't think that the above is at all true. There are some very vocal members of the community who certainly do think that way, but I think you'll find that while the majority of the community prefers open source software when available, they don't view closed-source code as "a disease".

 

While the fact itself might be true for many users your formulation is pretty unfortunate.
Linux doesn't need commercial software, it works fine without it. Linux has no intention to be commercially successfull, it doesn't care if it has <1% market share because market share is irrelevant. There are users that want commercial software on Linux, so they should make the producers of those softwares compile their products for Linux or at least make them wine-friendly.

One good alternative is enough. Plus, you don't have to learn all over again if you start right with the open source software in the first place. Teach pupils L/OO in school instead of MSO and they won't care if the computer runs Windows or Linux.
Of course the best approach would be not to teach them L/OO or MSO but generic office suite handling.
If there is no OS alternative for your CS software use the CS thing but don't blame the OS community for that.

It helps to prevent pollution of a free (libre) OS. There is no such thing like a partly free OS, just like one can't be partly pregnant.

 

Lenovo has systems that comes with DOS as well. Thinkpad T420 starting at 620 (Core i3, integrated GPU, etc).

As for the topic, I figured most people that use Linux would continue to use Linux. It's not like the reason they use Linux is because they can't afford Windows (prolly?) The price of Windows being included with the hardware is nothing compared to buying it by yourself, you wouldn't even save $100. Microsoft could give away copies for home use as they get most of they business from corporate use anyways. I think i saw something where it was a 70/30 split. 30% is a large chunk for sure but they wouldn't die if they were forced to do it for example.

 

Looking at the past decade of Windows malware, it's easy to see why the Linux community regards closed source programs with extreme suspicion. That's precisely what's driven the movement of developers towards Linux and casual users towards OS X.

Where? Link, please?

 

Photo/video support: The people who find the concept of codecs confusing in Windows won't be too happy with the fact that most Linux distros won't play an MP3 out of the box without additional software.
E-mail clients: I'm under the impression that Outlook is mostly an office thing and individuals typically use webmail for personal email anyway.
Manage and burn music: I haven't touched an audio CD since I got my first iPod years ago. Unfortunately there's a few hoops to jump through in order to sync an iDevice in Linux.
Basic home office suite: People sitting on existing MS Word documents that use the common Arial, Verdana, or Calibri fonts are going to be very disappointed when they fire up OpenOffice for the first time. In fact, I bet their first reaction would be to blame OpenOffice for "getting it wrong". And as we all know from Windows Vista, a negative first impression is enough to permanently destroy someone's opinion of something, even if later improvements render the original complaints moot.

I'm not complaining about a lack of choice, I'm complaining that there's too much choice. And before you all think that I'm crazy, keep in mind that the iPhone continues to sell very well despite iOS being completely locked down and the existence of alternatives (Android) that are far more open.

Many people view their computer as just another household appliance. They don't want to have to think too hard about what they're doing with it.

So essentially, you're in agreement with me in that Linux is not suitable for the masses and that the community should focus their efforts on enhancing Linux's strengths rather than addressing its weaknesses.

 

True. But that audience is not the Linux peer group. So no developer really cares. Linux users usually prefer ogg/vorbis, because it's free (libre). And they know about codecs because they needed that for the choice between mp3 and ogg.

If you use Linux for the reason of being free (libre) you won't buy an iDevice in the first place.

As for the L/OO-Linux users the same thing applies that I wrote for the mp3 support. This is surely different for L/OO-Windows users. But again, Linux doesn't care.

I tend to think that Linux is not for people who judge a book by its cover. So I don't see a problem here.

Freedom (of choice) is terrible because it also forces you to choose which requires hard comparison and thinking. This is why dictatorial systems like the MS or Apple sphere usually work better because people tend to be lazy if the downsides of the system are not too hard to take.

Some months ago I was in the situation to buy a smartphone and I voted against the HTC Desire Z with Android and for the Nokia N900 although the hardware of the HTC is superior. I did this because Android is still to much locked down for my taste.

Exactly. For me a computer is just too banal to allow it to restrain me with EULAs, viruses and stuff. This is why I use Debian stable. I'm lazy.

I agree up to here and I like this because a singe person is clever, but masses are dumb. I believe in the concept of swarm stupidity.

But I disagree with this part. The Linux (developer) community just doesn't care for the mass market. So the point you're trying to make simply doesn't exist.

 

He did say the ipod was years old, people can change debguy There also exists the problem of people who have fairly large media libraries already, which are (you guessed it) mp3's, and can be pretty daunting to convert it all to ogg.

Also, it's really no coincidence that Apple is reaping huge profits these days; they aggressively market to the simple minded, non-tech inclined, and there are a lot of them out there. Just the word linux makes a lot of people look the other way, it sounds like some 'spooky nerd talk' (quoting an actual person here) that makes them very uncomfortable. It doesn't matter that it's free, or more secure or more stable, it doesn't even matter that gnome and kde and xfce these days look similar to / better than OSX, or that it has the best file compatibility out there. You might even say Apple is succeeding because of linux - people want to feel different from "the windows herd" but are terrified of actually being different (linux), so hwere else can they turn?

 

I know. I'm in the same boat. Most of my music collection is from my pre-Linux era and some of that is in mp3 (most music from that time is in musepack). I don't convert it to ogg because I don't want to reduce the quality any further.
My point was that an ipod is not the way to go if you are already a Linux user. And if you can afford an ipod buying a new more open music player shouldn't be a problem. I personally wouldn't buy any music player these days that can't run rockbox.

And that's perfectly fine. Apple simply has another target group than Linux.

I agree. But I can't see something negative in that.

If that's how you think about Linux or FLOSS in general then it's simply not for you.
The whole FLOSS idea is about being free (libre), not about being Windows-like (to prevent using this confusing term "beginner friendly"). Of course FLOSS tries to be easy to use too, and it usually does this very good. The idea of what "easy to use" means is just different from what Windows users have in mind.

In fact most people are quite fine with Windows and they should stay with it. They don't really want to use Linux, they just don't want to pay for Windows and the software or are fed up with the security problems. So they try Linux because it's free (of charge) and start complaining because they didn't get the free Windows clone they were hoping for but something that works totally different.
These people just misunderstood the idea of Linux (most likely because some overzealous Linux fanboy talked them into it).

 

Well te only time I used Apple software nad hardware was in grade school back in the early 90s and then it was a solid OS for me. When I started to get serious with computers in the early-mid 90s I switched to windows (dos + win 3.11) and only dabbled in linux here and there. But for those few years Apple didnt do me wrong, but then again I wasnt a power user yet. I honestly think apple died in the mid 90s when they started making fab boutique computers instead of focusing on power. Just my $.02

While I agree that loading windows gives the OEM a kickback and that loading trialware lowers the price, a DOS option is still cheaper in the long run. Sure if you want or need windows then it makes perfect sense. But for those who are like me and already have windows licenses and use linux we would appreciate a DOS option. Sure we are in the minority, but still a market and such a market should be maintained in the business notebook world at least. Again just my $.02

 

Why?
The reason for some vendors selling their computers with DOS is because there is some strange contract with MS that says that no computer may be delivered without an OS. Delivering a computer with FreeDOS or something similar is just a hack to circumvent MS's wish to sell every single computer with some sort of Windows. But nobody actually keeps DOS on the computer and everybody knows it. The user knows it, MS knows it and the hardware vendor knows it too. There is simply no practical reason to deliver DOS with the computer.
The logical consequence would be to cancel those contracts and to sell computers without any OS at all like the user intended it.
But MS won't allow that because it would be a step into a free and fair OS market. This behavior of MS is why I don't like them and why I care a lot not to support them in any way.

 

That was a problem back c. 2004 or so. Nowadays it's not -- every modern distro has an automatic install process that is triggered the first time you try to play a file that requires a codec that's not installed. It's completely automated and the only human interaction that's required is required for legal reasons. Two clicks. That's it.

True. Even more reason that this is a non-issue for switchers.

Yes, such as plugging it in. At least that's the only hoop I've seen iPod owners have to jump through. Again, this isn't 2004 -- support for this sort of thing has worked for a long time.

Actually, the users I've seen that have such document never noticed, as font substitution preserved the formatting and general appearance just fine. Perhaps my sample users are just less observant of typography.

I don't think that you're crazy. That is indeed the key to Apple's recent success.

Which is exactly why I've had as much success as I have at converting home users to Linux. Everything from security updates to hardware monitoring is automated and handled transparently. They never need to hunt for an installer or try to find a driver. The same applications that they have available on day one are there years later, and what's more they still work exactly the same. That's a new and wonderfully-refreshing experience for them.

You and I may not have problems with spyware, malware, or crummy installers dumping BHOs and toolbars everywhere, but for home users who do face such problems, a stable, reliable, and consistent Linux install is a breath of fresh air.

No, I'm really not. I think Linux is indeed quite suitable for a large number of home users. It's not perfect for everybody, but no software is.

I do think that we should continue working on making user-friendly distros. My disagreement with (seemingly) a large chunk of the community is on how we go about it; I don't think we should compromise when it comes to portability, security, or consistency. User experience should be an important consideration for distro makers, but it should not come at the expense of good software design and implementation. In short, we *shouldn't* focus on the end user above all else, but we *should* think about the effects on him whenever we make a major change.

At any rate, I'm already guilty of pulling this thread way off track, so I suppose this should be my last post on this tangent...

 

So do I, as the Mint distro is a perfect example on how any computer noob can live happily ever after just using Mint.

 

The DOS option is the same as no OS to me. I didnt mean to literally use DOS, but offer like we both said a non windows option.

 

why is it cheaper in the long run? you can buy the cheapest version of a device, and that is most of the time the one loaded with windows. then you have a fresh new license + can use anything you want (your old licenses, dos, linux, hackintosh, whatever).

at least with any windows system, you know you can do what ever you like. we'll see how well the future goes with all the fixed systems like anything apple (ios or osx), the new google chromebooks, etc.. more and more systems are rather locked down. compared to that, windows systems are a godsend for anyone with linux interests. (any for anyone who likes to handle the system themselves in any way).

we'll see..

 

For most users, there is no FreeDos or Linux option - Windows is a take-it-or-leave it proposition. You're paying for it one way or another. I challenge anyone to show me actual links to small business and consumer product from mainstream manufacturers. The only non-Windows options are as follows:

Dell

Studio XPS 7100 n-Series
Latitude 2120 and 13
Vostro V130, 1014, 1015 with Ubuntu
Vostro 230 with FreeDos
Optiplex 160, 380 and 780 desktops with FreeDos


And that's it folks. Prove me wrong. Show me all those systems with FreeDos and Linux preloaded. And no System76 doesn't count.

 

FreeDOS is definitely an option on HP probooks. I think it is an option on other HP business models too.

In non-north america markets ASUS offers Eee PCs with freedos or no OS.

Crap I didn't want to post in this thread.

 

A what??? What strange contract?? You got a link debguy?

Besides, why can't the retailer choose a different OS? Why Windows?? Why not Linux? The kickback? Then it's a business decision. Which is perfectly fine. What's wrong with trying to earn money?

 

Actually no computer can be sold without operating system is because basically a computer would be useless without one. (They think that consumers cannot do it themselves).
Anyway I never had issues with Windows Preinstalled systems because
1)They are cheap with bloatware discounts
2)I will/can install Linux on my own.

 

Unfortunately not. But I have two examples from my own experience that indicate that.
1. When trying to order my M6500 with RHEL instead of Windows I was told that RHEL isn't available for some reason although the M6500 was advertised with it and there have even been press articles that said RHEL would be an option. So I wanted to have the M6500 with no OS at all but the Dell phone rep told me this is not possible because it would violate a contract with MS not to sell systems without an OS. I was very stubborn and said I'll buy this laptop without Windows or not at all. This made the whole process very complicated because Dell's software was not designed for configurations without Windows and I accidentally got an internal offering via e-mail that contained a Hungarian Windows version which was not available in Germany (where I live). I asked for the reason why there is a Hungarian Windows on my non-Windows offering and some 2nd level guy at Dell told me that it was an accident and that I shouldn't have gotten that internal offering at all. He said he had to do this hack with a non-available Windows version to activate some fallback in the software that defaults to FreeDOS. The external offering that was intended for my eyes contained FreeDOS. I got the laptop without any pre-installed OS and an extra FreeDOS CD.

2. Recently I bought an Asus netbook without Windows from an online store that is specialized on non-Windows systems. Before doing so I asked the owner of that shop via e-mail what he does with the Windows licenses because I knew that usually one can't get those devices without Windows and I didn't just not want to have Windows but to make sure that it won't be registered as being sold. He told me that they have special contracts with the manufacturers to get devices without Windows and that they also have special NDAs with the notebook manufacturers not to reveal their special contracts so that MS doesn't punish the hardware manufacturer. Unfortunately he didn't want to go any further in detail.

The official statement you'll get from most retailers would be that they can't sell enough devices with a non-Windows OS to make it profitable to offer them at all.

There's nothing wrong with earning money - as long as it's done by fair means.

Of course they know that people who want a computer without an OS usually are able to install one on their own and it wouldn't be a technical problem to offer two versions of a product (one with a Windows image on the HDD and one with an empty HDD). The strategy to see the OS as an integral element of a working computer is just a nice legal hack to circumvent the practically worldwide interdiction of bundling software with hardware. Because if you don't separate between software and hardware in the first place then it's no longer a bundle.

I have a problem with that because I don't want it and there is no logical reason to force me to procure it. And I don't like to be forced.

This might change soon. With TPM and the Sandy Bridge remote shutdown feature the necessary technology is available.

 

I doubt that. I mean... you're right in that it's possible, but c'mon, I remember reading plenty of these Chicken Little claims back nearly a decade ago when "trusted computing" was first being discussed.

It was going to happen starting in about 2004, as I recall, when Longhorn was released. That would be it -- no more Linux, BSD, etc. The manufacturers were going to use TPM and lock everything down.

Oops. We meant 2005, when Longhorn is released.

Or... uh... 2006. Vista. This time for sure, it'll be the end!

Ok, so not yet. But maybe Windows 7?

Oh.

Well... maybe it'll happen with the release of Windows 8...

 

TPM is not for locking the device from you.
It is for generating encryption keys for the device and your password so you get a better key...AFAIK.
It is already utilised in bitlocker, only devices with TPM can use BitLocker feature.
PC will never become Windows Locked Down because Microsoft don't own the "PC Specification" unlike how Apple owns and define Macs.

 

For those wondering about Microsoft's past business practices and their licensing strong arm tactics, take a glance at "The Microsoft File". It's a bit dated, but still gives a good view into the world that is Microsoft.