Why You Can't Buy a Naked PC

ZDOne writes "A piece up on ZDNet looks at the issue of naked PCs. ZDNet UK phoned around all the major PC vendors and not one of them would sell a machine without Windows on it. IT professionals are being forced to adopt Microsoft's operating systems — even if they tell their PC supplier they want a system free of Microsoft software. On the other hand, even if it's almost impossible to buy a PC without an operating system installed, companies like Dell and HP are now committed to supporting Linux as well. 'Murray believes there is a market for Linux in the UK but is also aware of the issues facing any large supplier who wants to make Linux boxes available. "It means diverting production lines and that is a lot of money and so we have to prove the business case," he said. However, he made it clear that he is enthusiastic about the idea and wants to make it work. "We just have to show it is worthwhile," he said.'"

Comments

Why does it matter if it's free?

[Overzeetop]

I don't get it. You get the Win for "free" (or less) due to the nagware installed. Why not just get the pc with linux-capable components, let the advertizers pay for your unused copy of windows, and install your favorite flavor of linux (or whatever you plan on using)?

I have yet to get a new pc I didn't re-image or install from scratch anyway. If I used linux I'm certain I wouldn't like the vendor's setup any more than I like their win installs. Too many custom setting to get these kinds of things to work they way we use them. If the windows is effectively free, and you have to do a reinstall anyway, why not just ignore it?

Oh, right - it's far more appropriate to whine about it.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[JesseL]

How do you figure you're getting windows for free? I guarantee that the vendor is paying Microsoft for the license (even if it's heavily discounted), and they're not going to just swallow that cost - it will get passed on to you.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Its discounted sure, but there is also a lot of other revenue they make when Windows is preinstalled. Google (or some other search provider) pays to have thier search engine set as the default, AOL pays to have thier crapware installed. McAfee pays to have thier 60 free-trial installed. etc, etc, etc.

I don't know that any real numbers have ever been released, but many analysts I've read think the main PC sellers actually make money just by including Windows because of all the other stuff they install on the PC with it.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[1u3hr]

Most people on /. would argue that the value of OEM windows is also less than zero. Not a problem, since this negative-value software is trivially removed. Win-win.

On a purely financial basis, it's sensible to buy Windows and throw it away. What burns people is that they're enriching Bill Gates with their purchase, even if they delete his software and never use it, and entrenching his monopoly. And the OEMs can state there is no demand for anything else; a vicious circle. It could get more vicious when "Trusted Computing" makes it harder and harder for non-MS OSs to use the hardware at all. With 100% of their sales Windows installed, the OEMs don't care if their hardware supports any other OS.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[Kadin2048]

It's because the manufacturers figured out that people don't really care about pixel resolution; they only look at the size of the screen.

I.e., most people will look at a 17" screen and assume that it must be better than a 15" screen, because it's bigger. The size is the only metric that they'll use.

So, manufacturers have responded by building absurdly large screens into notebooks, and dropping the resolutions further and further down in order to cut costs.

Sure, I blame MS, but...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think it's a bit more complicated. Sure we know that, historically, Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices like "the Microsoft Tax". But I would think that Dell, HP, and the others are probably equally scared of people like my friend "Joe". He's cheap as (fill in your preferred perjorative here), and if he could save a few bucks buying a PC without an OS he'd do it. Problem is, he is not tech savvy in the least - so he'd get some cut-rate version of Windows one way or the other, try - and fail - to install it, then spend hours on the phone with Dell arguing over "why their computer is broken". I've tried helping him with tech problems over the phone before, and I'll tell you - it's like pulling teeth getting just basic information from him.

When the vendors claim they don't want to sell naked PCs because of the potential support nightmare, I believe them. It's not the Slashdot crowd that's the problem; but there are 100 "Joe"s for every 1 Slashdotter.

Preinstalled ensures that drivers exist and work

[tepples]

We Linux guys are picky enough we know exactly which distro and what version of that distro, and which of all the available packages we want installed - and we'd probably rather do it ourselves, anyways. So yeah, there's little point in whining, except for that statistics thing. And the tendency of too many hardware manufacturers to 1. not provide Linux or *BSD drivers, 2. not describe their hardware in enough detail to allow the free software community to develop and maintain its own drivers, 3. silently replace the chipset with an incompatible chipset in a revision of the same make and model of hardware, and 4. promote such incompatible hardware to OEMs. Buying a PC with preinstalled Ubuntu OS at least makes sure that your PC contains Linux-compatible hardware.

there's not enough demand

[b17bmbr]

I'd wager that there's not enough consumer demand (or business consumers) for naked PC's. but there are other factors as well. one, there is but one windows, and dell, et al., can taylor it to their machines and make it work at least out of the box. no, they don't have the control over it as they would linux, but they have enough. when you screw with the machine, it's you screwing with it. and help is much easier, and cheaper, when there's a single OS. imagine having to figure out the distro, the kernel, etc. it'd be a disaster.

that linux is "free" in all senses for you and me, doesn't make it free for dell, etc. to add an OS would be very expensive and to provide none (for every comptuer), would terribly diminish their product. the OS for dell is a complementary good without which, they couldn't sell their product. not to defend MS or dell, but the truth is, MS is well within their rights to demand that dell sell a copy with every machine to get a volume discount, ability to modify it, etc. but the bottom line is that there just isn't enough interest to justify naked PC's. however, notice Dell's server line. you can get them, which ought to tell you something.