Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux Laptops - Microsoft Will Not Play Nice

  • Subject: Re: Linux Laptops - Microsoft Will Not Play Nice
  • From: "Troy1of2" <troy1of2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 17 Aug 2006 18:39:25 -0700
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • Injection-info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.141.123.217; posting-account=8urPCw0AAADhkixvL5DG-gpBxff6Nb47
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <2033287.YVAyJpHmoz@schestowitz.com> <Ri2Fg.11598$tP4.1214@clgrps12> <44e4b6f7$0$560$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <xZ2Fg.11603$tP4.4815@clgrps12>
  • User-agent: G2/0.2
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1141786
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Geico Caveman" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:44e4b6f7$0$560$b45e6eb0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Oliver Wong wrote:
> >
> >> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:2033287.YVAyJpHmoz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> [...]
> >>> | I may be a curmudgeon, but it goes against my principles to pay for an
> >>> | operating system I'm never going to use. I simply refuse to pay for a
> >>> | machine that has a Microsoft tax on it, no matter how hidden.
> >>> `----
> >>>                http://www.linuxextremist.com/?p=87
> >>
> >>     I always find these claims made in the absolute strange. Would they
> >> refuse to buy a laptop from a vendor who employs someone who buys bread
> >> from a baker who paid for her copy of Windows XP Home? 'Cause the money
> >> that Microsoft eventually received had to come from *somewhere*...
> >>
> >> <foodAnalogy>
> >>     I too dislike paying for something I'm never gonna use (regardless of
> >> whether that something is an operating system or not), but that doesn't
> >> mean I boycott all such things. Consider buying a sandwich from Subway.
> >> You pay for the meal, and you're allowed as many toppings as you want.
> >> Subway doesn't take a loss on their meals, so you've "already paid for"
> >> all the toppings that are available to you. However, there exists some
> >> toppings I don't like (such as green peppers).
> >>
> >>     I don't consider the opportunity of receiving green peppers as
> >>     something
> >> negative. Rather, it's a very low value benefit (approaching zero), since
> >> I don't like green peppers and am probably never going to take advantage
> >> of that opportunity. However, I'm not going to boycott Subways just
> >> because they offer green peppers and I don't like green peppers. I pay
> >> for
> >> the meal because I think the meal is worth it. And if some of the money I
> >> paid is to subsidize the "free" green peppers that other people are
> >> receiving, that's their business and not mine.
> >> </foodAnalogy>
> >>
> >
> > Can you walk out of Subway without the green peppers (even if you have
> > already paid for them) if you wish ?
> >
> > Now apply that analogy to buying a computer.
>
>     McDonalds puts onions in my hamburgers, and I don't like onions either.
> Sometimes I ask them to remove the onions, but I find that this increases
> the preparation time before I receive my hamburger (as they need to make a
> new custom buger just for me, rather than pick out one of their pre-made
> hamburgers), so what I do is just take the hamburgers, with onions, and then
> manually remove the onions myself. I use the French Fries to remove the
> onions so as to avoid getting ketchup or mustard on my hands.
>
> >
> > Further, do makers of green peppers threaten Subway in any way if Subway
> > does not make sure that green peppers are on each sub it sells ? That
> > analogy is getting ridiculous.
>
>     Okay, so let's drop the analogy and go back to the main issue: Does it
> make sense to always refuse to buy a from a certain computer vendor because
> there may be a Microsoft tax hidden somewhere within the sales transaction?
> It depends on how much you hate Microsoft, I suppose. Would you be willing
> to pay an extra $100 to get identical hardware, but without software
> installed, and with a promise that none of the profits will go to Microsoft?
> An extra $500? $1000?
>
>     I wouldn't. I'd just manually remove the software myself, if I didn't
> want it. But maybe I just don't hate Microsoft enough.
>
>     - Oliver

The issue, in my understanding at least, isn't a matter of hating
Microsoft so much as hating the defacto standard that if you buy a PC
you are going to buy a copy of Widows with it whether you want it or
not. This restricts the consumer's right to choose their OS and hurts
Linux or any other OS's chances of making headway into the market.

Say you're the head of an IT department for a small company and you're
trying to talk the boss into using Linux on 20 computer's he's about to
buy for the company. Now if you could compare the two side by side on a
level playing field Linux would have a huge cost advantage over Windows
which would be a great selling point to win the boss over. But as
things stand now, at most places, when he buys these 20 computers they
are going to come with Windows pre-installed on them anyway and the
price of the computers is going to include the cost of Windows so there
goes the software cost advantage of going with Linux. Now, add to that
the extra time required to format the drives and install Linux and the
boss is going to say, well, we might as well go with the OS that is
already on the computers. Hence, Microsoft has a lock on the market
that is very difficult to budge.

Now, granted, there are other factors which you can argue with the boss
such os the cost of Office software, security, etc. But the fact that
you've already got an OS on the computer and it's already paid for kind
of make's it easier, to most non-Linux savvy people, to just use what
you've already got. Which is also why Internet Explorer is the dominant
web browser nowadays.

With a level playing field Linux could conceivably gain more
marketshare and Microsoft might even have to <Gasp> lower their prices
to compete which would be good for everybody. The cost of the Windows
OS has gone up steadily over the years even as the cost of computers
and hardware has gone down. Why? Lack of competition. That competition
is stifled by this 'Microsoft Tax'. That is the issue. To me at least.

Another thing that gets me is, among the few distributors online who
are selling Linux loaded laptops their prices are not competitive at
all. I can easily buy similarly equiped systems from Dell for $200 to
$300 less in most cases and that is with Windows included. Why can't I
find a Linux laptop cheaper than a similarly equiped Windows laptop?
With a $184 price difference for the software (granted, that is the
non-volume retail cost but you get my point) why shouldn't it be
possible to build a Linux laptop for less?

Of course, I know the answer for the most part is that Dell is a very
large company and due to sheer volume and mass production they are able
to build their laptops for much less than these smaller companies which
are building and selling Linux laptops.

Now, if one of these big companies like Dell or HP could start selling
their laptops side-by-side with the Windows equipped models but with
the cost of the OS discounted that would make a difference and it would
be a product I would be interested in buying but need we guess why
efforts to do just that always seem to vanish shortly after they are
announced and who (M$) is likely behind the scenes squashing efforts to
sell Linux or OS free computers by large retailers?

Here's a quote from an interesting article I read on The Register:

"Compaq was also mentioned in other memos, with Microsoft taking the
line that OEMs should "meet demand but not help create demand" for
Linux."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index