Slashdot Mirror
Why Buy a PC Preloaded With Linux?
Shadow7789 writes "I have been in the market for a new computer for the past few weeks and I know that I want to run Linux on it. However, every time I look at (for example) Dell's computers that are preloaded with Linux, the question pops into my head: 'Why should I buy a PC preloaded with Linux?' They are more expensive, and it's not hard just to reformat the PC with Linux. I hate paying the Microsoft Tax as much as anybody else, but if paying that 'tax' allows companies to reduce my price by bundling with my PC products that I will never use, why wouldn't I just buy a Windows-loaded PC and reformat?"
If it's got Linux installed on it, you know that the hardware it's got is supported by Linux. Nothing worse than buying a new computer and finding out it's got some chipset or other that Linux doesn't work with yet.
So.. it has come to this
Everything you say is correct from a cost/hardware standpoint. If you wich to vote with your dollars against crapware bundling, you will need to overlook that.
So that companies realise that people want Linux, which will encourage them to start making drivers/software compatible. If people buy, then add Linux, companies just assume no one wants Linux. However, if you read the Windows EULA, you can get a full refund from the retailer for the copy of Windows, so that proves a point, and saves you a lot of money.
I'm a die-hard Linux geek as well, and all for preloaded Linux (especially if it solves driver issues!), but if a computer is cheaper with Windows, why not buy the cheaper computer and get a refund for not accepting the EULA? You then save money on both fronts, and get your Linux computer.
At the end of the day, I always decide that the hassle isn't worth it and that I'd also rather send the message to the company that there is a market for selling computers preloaded with Linux.
Just my $0.02.
I was looking at new Thinkpads through Lenovo, and a T60/T61 with Linux pre-installed actually costs less than the same system with Windows XP or Windows Vista.
I haven't looked at their desktops, so I don't know if the same applies there.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you buy a machine with a preinstalled OS, it's the vendor's reponsibility to ensure that it's compatible, and all the relevant drivers exist and perform reasonably well. If you roll your own, then you take that responsibility.
If you consider the ability to say 'hey, this doesn't work, I want my money back' without the reply being 'works for us, you messed up the install, your problem' to have a monetary value, then it's probably worth paying for the 'free' software.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Isn't preloading one the mantras the Linux community has been chanting in their "this is the year of Linux"?
look at Novatech they have all their headline prices without operating system. You can specify various flavours of windows as an optional extra. In fact look at this one
No Operating System Installed £249.99 inc vat
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition £299.99 inc vat
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic £329.00 inc vat
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium £339.00 inc vat
Microsoft Windows Vista Business £349.00 inc vat
Microsoft Windows XP Professional £359.00 inc vat
And that's the ideal case where there are no problems whatsoever after installing the OS. During my last attempts to install Ubuntu, I had to manually mess with the video driver settings (and that was for an ancient Ati Rage Mobility 3 chipset, nothing newfangled, which ran just fine with the previous version of Ubuntu).
Well, first of all, the price difference isn't really all that much. In fact, unless you are buying in bulk and getting an Enterprise discount, the cost difference is less than $50.00 (in the case of Dell, anyway).
Secondly, if you WANT Linux and FOSS software to succeed in the desktop realm, supporting companies that are willing to go out on a limb and sell Linux on Desktops and Laptops is necessary. If there isn't any profit in it for them, they won't support FOSS. Simple as that.
Thirdly, Why would you WANT to pay the "Microsoft Tax", or have to deal with fighting with a machine who's hardware might only be partially supported under Linux. Vs. a machine with NO "Microsoft Tax" AND will have all hardware fully supported in Linux? Why make things harder on yourself?
Unless there is a specific piece of hardware that you need or want that is in a Windows box and not a Linux box, I really don't see the need to buy Windows when you want Linux if there are Linux machines available. Especially when the Linux machines are comparable in specs to the Windows ones, excepting the really high-end gaming rigs (Of course, if you want a high-end gaming rig, why wouldn't you just build it yourself from hardware you know is Linux supported?)
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I can see several benefits of buying a Linux-installed desktop.
- for one thing, one can pray that the manufacturer has done everything to maximize compatibility. Sure, you can do it yourself, but for an average user, it really makes sense.
- support. Support is needed, when you're stuck and dont know what to do (or what questions to ask in the forums!). Having professional support is always a plus.
- you can't resell your Windows liscence anyways (read the small print). So why just trash it?
- giving the industry a sign. Ok, that one is a bit too theoretical, but anyways. A company producing a nice linux-powered PC that sells will continue to do that. Develop drivers, boots support, invest time and money. It will be an indicator that it isnt ony possible, but profitable... maybe others will then follow!
http://www.automatiq.se
It's not that much more difficult to build a computer on your own. You get to pick the parts which means you can build Linux compatibility. You don't have to pay for Windows. It's really that simple.
Even if buying a computer bundled with a Microsoft license does not cost you more, it means that some money goes to Microsoft corporation. The question is, are you ok with that? If you'd rather not support what Microsoft is doing, it might be a good solution to offset the effect of that financial support for Microsoft by making a donation to one of the various organizations that work towards achieving a more reasonable future in the field of IT.
Then return windows. Tell them you do not agree with the licence and ask for a refund.
Sorted
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
If the cheapest PC you can buy has Windows pre-loaded, then buy it, reject the EULA (document the proces - maybe take photos - since you can expect a hassle) and claim a Windows refund from the vendor, then install Linux. Or, if like most people you still have occasional use for Windows, then accept the EULA and create a dual boot system.
Returning windows does so many good things: increases the cost of selling Windows. Reduces the cost of buying a machine for Linux. Ensures MS don't get their MSTax, exercises the consumer laws, teaches companies to accept returns. (in the long run; the company probably makes a fixed cost deal with MS in any case and probably doesn't dare claim back, but they get a stronger negociating position next time round if many people do this).
Probably even better (I'm not sure though) is buying from a supplier like penguin computing which doesn't stock Windows in the first place. When you give extra money to Dell, you are giving to a company which does a great deal to support Windows development. When you give to Penguin, you can be pretty sure you aren't contributing.
I think the choice between the two only applies to people that want a working system out-of-the-box. The rest of us just build from parts anyway. And surely, even with Ubuntu, there are still a couple of problem with hardware and multimedia playback on a clean install, hence a little extra effort. Besides, Dell had a large Windows help desk knowledge base. The probably don't want to have to support two OS'es
I bought a Ubuntu Dell because it's very convenient. It's been a long long time since I thought installing an OS was a fun use of my time; and it was kinda nice to have it working out-of-the-box.
And it doesn't always cost more.
Dell pricing is very funny.
Sometime the Linux models cost more, sometimes less.
Sometimes the Dell Small Business models cost more than Dell Home, sometimes less.
In my case a dell coupon code that they didn't mention would work on the Ubuntu model happened to work, so it was actually the exact same price as the windows model that day.
Reread Milton Friedman's _Free to Choose_. When you buy it, you're communicating with the market, saying "I want a computer with Linux." When you buy a computer with Windows preinstalled so you can wipe it and install Linux, you're fibbing to the market--it will interpret that as "I want a computer with Windows", and be more likely to do that and ultimately to stop selling computers with Linux preinstalled. And for that matter, they aren't going to press hardware makers for Linux-friendly hardware, either--why should they?
You may be able to install Linux on such a computer, but the proverbial Joe Sixpack or grandmother can't, or will be afraid to, or won't want to bother. If you lie to the market, you're making it less likely that _they_ will have the option to buy a computer with Linux preinstalled.
(And yes, I've put my money where my mouth is; I'm waiting for the Dell laptop with Linux preinstalled to arrive.)
This is probably obvious to most people, but any x86 server is good out of the box today running Linux. Same for the vast majority of desktops. Slightly less so for Laptops, but I haven't tried many that don't work. It is the "secret" contracts with MS and the spam-like crapware that cause most of the headaches. We should be able to buy virgin systems, like businesses and put on any OS we like. The hardware manufacturers would love to support only the hardware, but they are forced to support Windows and squeeze their margins. Companies like Lenovo and Dell sell their hardware with Linux because they don't have to support the OS. Of course the Lenovo T61 I just bought was $97 dollars cheaper with the Suse option than with the Vista.
A few years back, I bought an IBM server and I was willing to pay for the effort and testing that IBM had performed in order to guarantee its compatibility with Linux and other popular server operating systems. I was very impressed with the level of support that IBM provided. None of the usual "It shipped with Windows Blech, install anything else and you are on your own".
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Windows 95 had a great theme song.
Maybe Linux could benefit by having a catchy theme song too.
First, is the visibility. Companies do not have any idea how many people want Linux (or do not want M$, depending on your view point). Purchasing pre-loaded fixes the books so that companies have no doubt.
Second is, as someone else mentioned, you know that all of your components work with Linux. Most of us have had issues, where M$ only devices reside on a purchased PC. In that case, generally the products have no vendor support for Linux, and driver/software products capable of using them rely on the time consuming task of reverse engineering.
Remember too that companies like Dell have to pay more for Linux support (Gigabazillions paid top dollar for that M$ cert.. as opposed to the handful that earned their RHCx)
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you buy something preloaded with Linux, the companies involved know that they just sold one more unit on account of Linux. If enough computers are sold in this way, compatibility with Linux will have much more value to them, and the hardware they buy will reflect this. This, in turn, will encourage more hardware vendors to be compatible with Linux.
The question you want to ask yourself is whether the extra money paid is worth the chance to help bring this about. How much is the future prospect of better Linux compatibility worth to you? Is there something more valuable you can and want to do with whatever money you might save?
No, you'll feel better if you stand on principle, especially if it only cost you a few bucks. Judas killed himself over twenty silver pieces, right?
Every voice probably counts for something? That should really inspire the next generation.
Come on, man. You do actually use Linux, don't you? Do you really believe your own post? I encourage you to think critically about it. Participating in slashdot should embolden us to eliminate the Microsoft tax, not rationalize paying it.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Perhaps in your country they don't do this, but where I live there are lots of stores that assemble your PC with the specs you give, and no OS preinstalled. My PC costed me around 600 dollars.
Based on the assumption that the crapware makers pay for having their stuff bundled, in the hope of selling subscriptions (or whatever) to inexperienced users:
:-)
By all means, buy the Windows computer and reformat to Linux. You will end up doing Microsoft a favor, but the crapware vendor has wasted his advertising money. I dislike this guys as much as Microsoft, and would settle for damaging them instead of MS.
Now if lots of people do this, I predict two consequences:
1) Crapware bundling will no longer be an attractive business model. Maybe some crapware vendors go out of business
2) The license costs of Windows are no longer compensated by crapware advertising money. At that point, computers bundled with Windows should actually become more expensive than the Linux versions.
C - the footgun of programming languages
If you stand on principle, you may cost Microsoft a few bucks, but in the process you will end up costing yourself a few bucks too. It's hardly worth it since it's really a drop in the bucket for MS whereas it's probably a real cost to you.
Uh, how would not paying a Microsoft tax end up costing myself a few bucks?
Look at it this way, every voice probably counts for something, but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter all that much what you as an individual do, so why go out on a limb and do something that is going to directly harm yourself?
What limb? I can't think of anything negative that could happen to anyone if they dared not to choose windows on their new computer purchase.
Whatever money MS gets will go into coming out with a better competitor to Linux, and that perpetuates the good positive feedback cycle that competition is supposed to spur.
Ahahahahaha! Now I know you've been joking! Sorry I didn't pick up on the sarcasm sooner...
Except that's bad advice. Buying a machine from, for example, Dell, with Linux pre-installed means that that PC has the same guarantee as Dell's Windows PCs as far as hardware compatibility, which means fewer headaches for you as a user. That alone should be worth a slightly higher price, if you're going to be installing Linux on it anyway. This also counts toward telling manufacturers that there's actually a demand for Linux, which will drive them to improve support for it--a "drop in the bucket", as you put it, but after a while they start to add up.
I bought a Dell Ubuntu laptop, which I decided to wipe clean and try a fresh Linux install with the standard image that I downloaded.
No dice. Dell shipped that with a custom install of Ubuntu that included the special drivers I needed that weren't part of the standard install. I ended up using their custom image to restore my pc, which worked perfectly. I can't imagine how long it would have taken me to get everything working otherwise. If you're going to use Linux anyway, I say it's better to get the peace of mind, for the small price difference there may be at any particular point.
And I fully agree with what others have said. Give these companies the incentive they need to get support for Linux hardware.
"I hate paying the Microsoft Tax as much as anybody else, but if paying that 'tax' allows companies to reduce my price by bundling with my PC products that I will never use, why wouldn't I just buy a Windows-loaded PC and reformat?"
.. :)
So as you can then get the refund of US$109.162 by clicking "no" on the Windows licence agreement
It is odd that a Linux box costs more then a Windows box considering what Dell is paying for Linux. And considering with Linux you get a fully functioning Desktop, Office suite, multimedia etc as compared to a time limited reduced functionality Windows desktop.
Does Dell still have to pay the Microsoft tax regardless of how many Windows boxes it sells?
davecb5620@gmail.com
You want to know a good reason to get a Linux preload? Trying to get Ubuntu to work with a Latitude D830 a few months ago was no fun.
Most of this is from memory, as I won't work there any more, and I'm mostly an OS X user, because I hate wasting my time with things that are broken out of the box.
First was even getting Ubuntu to boot. The current Ubuntu at the time needed to have "all_generic_ide" manually added to the boot parameters to get the Live Install CD to boot at all, or it would drop to a shell prompt with a cryptic error message, because it couldn't see anything on the IDE bus, and it couldn't read anything from the CD that wasn't part of the kernel/ramdisk image.
Next was getting the wireless drivers to work. It uses a Broadcom chipset which doesn't have Linux drivers (or at least not without a lot of work googling and downloading and compiling and configuring unfinished drivers), and when using ndiswrapper with the drivers from the Dell CD, I wasn't able (IIRC) to get it to stick to a particular SSID or enter a WEP key using the Ubuntu GUI setup, and I don't remember having much more success with the command line. Also, changing the network configuration sometimes didn't always change the network address, and while that may have been an Ubuntu bug,laptop didn't ship with Linux, so there was no support beyond pin-the-tail-on-the-user-support-board.
And then there was the trackpad. Goddamn piece of crap trackpad. I'm sure it worked wonderfully under Windows, but Ubuntu's default install set it up in a hyper-sensitive mode, where the cursor whizzed across the screen, and more than the lightest touch was taken as a mouse click. Try to click on something on the menu bar at the top of the screen, and you're likely to launch Firefox as you pass by its tiny little icon. It took me days to come up with an xorg.conf that moved at a decent speed, and turned touch-click completely OFF. (And the way that USB devices get set up for X-Windows under Linux, sequentially numbered in the order they were found, makes configuring trackpads potentially unreliable anyhow. Oops, this time I had a mouse plugged in during boot, so now my trackpad has a different event source number!)
And that's why you should want Linux pre-loaded. Drivers and configuration.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Given the hassle of the refund and the great expense of dealing with these refunds, I think (playing devils advocate) it sends a stronger message when you buy what you want and exercise your consumer rights by making the necessary effort. Not to sound too elitist, but the machines offered by Dell with Ubuntu are fairly weak for their price. Hours on the phone with a CSR and possible small claims judgments against them can either be damaging, or encouraging to offer real options to the small subset of unhappy customers.
M$ plays hardball to sell their OEM VLK's. I would not be surprised if Ballmer wasn't lying when he said "Vista has been a great success" because the way M$ does business doesn't require people to actually buy it or use it. Think Dell got any "discount" or paid any less across the cost of all their machines because of a few (even potentially a million) Ubuntu computers? I bet not. M$ effectively collects a direct tax. They already have the money.
If it is playing nice, or going to small claims court, either Dell/HP is going to get screwed from both ends, or they are going to start taking money back from M$ by whatever means is necessary for them.
As long as I am making it as dramatic as possible, I have heard (at least from The Great Escape) that your primary duty as a Prisoner of War is to make it as expensive as possible for your captors to hold you. It isn't just pro-Linux, it is Anti-OS Bundling! How different would it be from all computers coming bundled with all the latest and greatest games for your computer because it is cheaper than fighting piracy. Even better, all those games are bundled at 5-10% of the retail price. I think most people would say "hurray, what a deal!". Cheap games, preloading saves time, defeats piracy (cause who needs to steal what they already have), and game developers get their fair share. Nothing about economics would have anything negative to say about this, so what is with all these elitist slashdotters coumplaining about?*
*-sarcasm
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
http://xkcd.com/357/
Installing Windows is _not_ as easy as you make it seem. I recently built my own PC, and tried installing Vista64 on it. It just repeatedly got a little way through, threw a bsod and error codes at me, then immediately rebooted. It turns out Vista just does not work with a nVidia chipset motherboard, and 4gb or more of RAM without a hotfix (that I couldn't download because because I didn't have WGA). I've just realised how completely ass backwards this is - This is a hotfix for a bug that prevents Vista installing, which you can only download with a fully installed version of Vista. Very fucking useful. I installed win2k anyway, found out about the problem, then pulled 2gb out, installed, installed the hotfix, then put the 2gb back in. Then the wireless didn't work, despite claiming to be supported. It just failed. It was a Belkin card, and I eventually found out my revision was on a Ralink chipset, so I went and downloaded their drivers, which didn't work either. I finally tried using Vista's included Ralink drivers, and that did work. Woohoo, working system. Apart from the network copying "calculating time remaining" bug, it's working fine now - I just use robocopy from the command line, though whenever anyone suggests using the command line in Linux, people throw their arms in the air. Yes, that's right, on a new version of Windows, new install, I _have_ to use the command line to copy network files about.
Anyway, I'm not having a rant against Vista here - I quite like it. It's fast, it boots fast, and works decently. I'm just pointing out a few major problems I had with my most recent install of Vista. It most definately can be difficult to install. I've not gotten round to installing Linux yet (got a nice 400gb partition set aside for it though), I don't know how many problems I'll have with that. ;)