You can not log in, no tracking occurs whilst not logged in AND while logged in, there is a "PAUSE" button which stops any additions to your search history until you RESUME it. Nice touch.
I disagree with your statement: "...., In the grand grand scheme of things I would say that it is barely even relevant...."
A company (or person for that matter) doesn't have to be curing a disease to be important... It merely has to be important. And Google is that! And, we can argue the nuance of how important, but for me any company that can "verb" its own name has done something (especially considering contextually the verb "Google" is a benign, even good construct, not an expletive).
Google may not produce sera for curing disease but consider Google's impact even on that slice of civilization. I'm willing to bet more than one researcher on more than many occasions has used Google as a research tool to further their work. Hence Google (IMO) probably DOES contribute to curing disease.
Likewise for all of the "non-profit" companies -- Google has impacted their day to day existence too.
I don't think any (from the parent post) "most important tech companies" modifier is necessary when describing Google as one of the most important companies. Google can stand alone on its merit.... and evidence of continued contribution.
..., and say that there should be an open standard (there prolly already is, if not develop one),...
There IS already a standard that works pretty well. I started using it in 1984. I had a fairly underpowered, but sufficient word processor called "ed" and created literally hundreds if not thousands of documents for my work. Soon I upgraded to the word processor "sc", a full-screen implementation and then "vi", also a full-screen implementation (oh, okay, vi automatically would only redraw 4 lines if it detected dialup speed connections (they called it baud-rate back then)).
Today my standard is typically vim, a "vi" on steroids.
The standard "format" these word processors manipulated? ASCII. (Of course there are relatives and quite compatible ones at that, but that becomes a long discussion.)
Unfortunately, templates and standards for design documents rarely are left to the hapless development staff but are instead left to the people who don't have to read them... Oh, they have to look at them, bind them, distribute them, and related "business" machinations, but they don't really have to READ them, and thus far too often technical teams are left having to shoehorn designs into inappropriate, rigid, and non sequitor documents. If this were an only-one-time experience in my career, I'd have more hope, but I've encountered this phenomenon over and over.
For the record, I agree: Design documents should be easilly written and easilly updated. I prefer a text editor to something where I can have 'really nice' formatting. Its just easier and quicker, and that leads to the documents being more likely to be kept up to date...., but ability and common sense about what documents SHOULD look like is far less likely to be the obstacle than the policy governing design documents.
Your mileage may vary. Good luck! We're counting on you.
Hmmm, didn't realize there were only 22, but I suspect defining what "compliance" means. Certainly POSIX compliance was bandied about glibly when NT was introduced... I assumed POSIX meant POSIX, which for us (we?) in the Unix world mean to include more than just the POSIX API standard.... For example POSIX also includes a User Interface standard which defines a set of utilities, their behavior, and options to modify their behavior (this is basically a definition of the suite of Unix commands found on a typical Unix installation (including vi!)).
I think Microsoft took advantage of:
the current popularity in technical arenas (circa 1992) of unix and unix-like OS's and their perceived technical superiority
the imprimatur of POSIX "certification"
the obfuscation behind the fuzziness of what "POSIX" meant/means, i.e., it is a multi-part standard including among others components:
API (for programming)
User Interface (for OS interaction)
...
I certainly was taken by the PR machine back then -- I really thought Microsoft was on its way to joining the open way of doing things. And in my interview process with them, they convinced me it was a new day and a new way for Microsoft. As stated in previous post, behind closed doors the story changed, not so much because the people I interviewed with misled me -- I think they truly believed the PR. It was policy from much higher Microsoft echelons calling the "we're not serious" shots.
What an interesting world it might have become had Microsoft really produced a new OS easily integrated with others. Instead they leveraged their "checkboxed" POSIX NT to get contracts (especially in government) where they otherwise couldn't only to ignore and leave unused the POSIX subsystem.
Whatever happened to the government requirement that systems and technology be POSIX compliant? I know I first was aware of that bent back in the early nineties, because that's when I went to work with Microsoft under the auspices of NT and its "POSIX compliance". It's also when I quit working for Microsoft when at the NT POSIX sub-system presentation (video-taped for posterity's sake) "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the announcement (and I paraphrase), "Before we get started with the presentation, let me make clear that as far as Microsoft is concerned, we don't care about the POSIX sub-system, we don't intend to support it, and we don't intend to do anything with it in the future. It's simply a check box so we can get Government contracts."
I thought the move to POSIX compliant systems was a step in the right direction, and I'm not sure I've seen any news or publicity to the contrary. Guess something's changed...
For the record, a subsequent followup phone call to Larry Kroger at Microsoft confirmed the message in a strong way....
I own one -- you can pretty much move files back and forth freely.... one of the nicest players I've seen, and biggest bangs for the bucks. Very open implementation. Plus, I think it has its own cachet for coolness.
While you may be using only ten percent of Google, you're certainly using
more than ten percent of your own brain.... That (only using ten
percent of our brains) is an urban myth.
..., This is a meaningless little soundbite lots of people like to throw out. Since a lot of typical business activities suddenly become illegal when a company is ruled a monopoly - and a company doesn't actually *know* it's a monopoly (and thus has to play by the new rules) until _after_ the court finding - how would you propose a "monopoly" *not* act in an illegal way ?
Well, I don't want to continue this discussion forever, but I would at this point throw in my "insider" knowledge about Microsoft. I worked there. I was one of sixteen on the original NT Beta support team, I was hired because of my unix background.... and at the time Microsoft was grandstanding about "POSIX compliant" new OS.... and they now were going to be part of the open standards interoperability "community"... (this I remember -- it was a cornerstone of the persuasion to get me to accept a position there).
After convincing me they were serious about their posix OS... I found out behind closed doors different... I walked out of one strategy meeting in anger accusing the team that if what they were doing weren't illegal, it was at the very least unethical. Later that week at a posix-subsystem (for NT) technical presentation, the presenter stood up and said (closely paraphrasing here)... "Before we get this presentation started, I want to make it perfectly clear this is a subsystem we don't care about, we don't intend to do anything with -- it's strictly a checkbox to satisfy requirements for getting government contracts."
All this while nervously re-assuring each other the current investigation into MS was over and settled (not the one later for which they were found in violation...).
Clearly to me MS was a company knowing fully what they were doing and why and that their actions could be illegal. But also a company fully confident they could get away with it.
So demand was, apparently, significant for non-Windows machines, but vendors wouldn't have been able to stay in business selling them ?
Never said it was significant... said there was ample evidence there was demand... certainly enough to foster and create a viable market. But the market was so distorted and skewed by Microsoft's actions the market was suffocated.... (exact words used by Microsoft in another scenario I believe, no wait, I guess it was "cut off their air supply"....)
I've read many of your posts -- you're quite versed in technology, seem to have a bit of a bent for Windows... You can read mine, you'll see I have a bent for linux, and unix... I think we can mostly agree to disagree on many of these issues... (you can even jump back in with the last word if you wish...). Enjoyed the chat.
The thing is, microsoft offers the vendor $99 (i.e. a lower price) per laptop in licencing fees, provided that the vendor ships ALL laptops with the Microsoft OS. In any case, they don't pay per laptop shipped with the Microsoft OS, they pay per laptop shipped. Even yours after you refuse to pay for the OS you won't use.
It's interesting you think that, because if what you describe were true then Microsoft would be continuing a licensing practice in violation of anti-trust laws for which they were found "guilty".
You can get some really amazing custom BMW's made....but you normally have to tack on about an extra $50,000 to $100,000 for the custimizations (sic)
Yeah, but I'm guessing for that extra $50,000 to $100,000 you're getting an enhanced BMW... The scenario here is a request to NOT have something as part of the package. In your example, I seriously doubt a BMW dealer would charge anything if a customer were to ask that the floor mats be removed.
And to the question, "why is it so damn hard to just reformat and install Linux yourself?", obviously whether or not the vendor would sell me a laptop without Windows, I would have to perform the linux install... so implicit in this story is that I am more than happy to accommodate the work necessary to format and install linux.
A monopoly is when there are no practical alternatives.
I guess that's correct! But I'm not claiming "foul" because of a monopoly! I'm crying "foul" because of the illegal tactics of one particular monopoly, Microsoft... (Of course it's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to USE that monopoly to effect an advantage in the market, something for which Microsoft has been found to be in violation.)
And, that abuse of monopolistic power by Microsoft has artificially induced into the market the kind of scenario I described.
it will just take an alternative product that enough customers ask for and a competitor prepared to provide it
There is ample evidence enough customers were willing to try other products, but Microsoft negotiated contracts such that vendors could NOT afford to even try to offer these other products.
It would take legislation to *force* manufacturers to develop a product the market *isn't demanding*.
Again, ample evidence existed/exists there is demand for products but vendors are still cowed by Microsoft contracts, etc., to the extent the market can't seem to get off the dime. The damage to the OS and computer market is significant, lasting, resonating, and persists today. I don't love the idea of legislation or government involvement but when one company garners so much of the market and controls it with illegal and bullying tactics sometimes action has to be taken by some entity to re-strike a reasonable equilibrium.
..., I've found that I've had to wrestle with crap in Windows a lot less than with Linux, especially on laptops (fsck you, Vaio).
You might try installing a linux on a laptop today -- it's much better than it used to be. I currently have linux running on an HP zx5000, wireless and everything working great...(currently typing this up on that HP... btw, 1920x1200 screen, Xorg Xwindows drives it perfectly!). I also have it on my old Dell Inspiron, wireless happens with a pcmcia card, and I have it on a brand new Averitec laptop.... again, everything working perfectly (including the dvd burner -- cool). I gave a Knoppix CD to my friends, and they regularly use that with their old Sony Vaio... boots right up, all devices work, and they access wireless with the pcmcia card.
For the record, I "proxy" mod you interesting, or insightful -- don't know why you got modded funny.
I may actually go that route. Thanks for the links, I'll be looking into them. For my original post (here), I didn't have that option... That was about seven years ago.
..., I'm not sure where the meme that "free market economy == every vendor should be required by law to exactly meet my specific requirements" originated from, but it's not even *remotely* accurate
I'm not sure where that meme comes from either... nor do I buy into it (quite frankly, I'm finding the word "meme" a tired saw).
Maybe if you'd read a few words past what you quoted in my post you'd get to my not-put-in-context-in-your-reply-post thesis. (For the record, THAT post is here.)
So, putting aside your comment on the meme that doesn't correlate with my original post, my point was that the situation I encountered doesn't represent a free market because it is perturbed by actions (found illegal by the DOJ.... but never effectively remedied) and practices of Microsoft.
You say, "you [I] are [am] completely free to seek other vendors who might provide products more aligned to your requirements", and normally that's true, but in the distorted OS market, especially then (the time I was describing in my original post), there were no options -- directly attributable to bad behavior by Microsoft.
..., reality of "value" in a free-market economy,...
I think this is the underlying strange-attractor in this whole deal. It isn't really a free-market economy because of the Microsoft field-force waves and their effect on the market. Annoying to say the least.
For the record, the $100 offer (charge to remove windows) was not an opening offer but a capitulation after a lengthy discussion (including the first rep I talked to).... If it had been the opening offer I would have probably been more amenable to a negotiated deal.... but I had to work hard to get just to that point. In a free-market economy (IMO) it shouldn't be that way.
Yeah, not an easy world for those trying to do linux on laptops, but since you mention HP, I'll relate my happy-ending story...
I have the HP zx5000... ordered it knowing I could make full use of the Windows side of it (yes, I do DO Windows,.... sigh). And hopeful I might make inroads by creating a successful dual boot with linux and hopefully get the wireless working without having to resort to an external pcmcia card to do so.
Used Mandrake 10.1, and used the partition re-size out of the box (from Mandrake install), and the entire install went without a hitch! Sweet!
I DID have to purchase a proprietary driver for the wireless... but I was willing to pay $19 for that (from Linuxant).
I LOVE this machine!
And, for the record, out of the box, Mandrake 10.1 recognized and configured and took full advantage of the 1920x1200 resolution screen. It's great!
You're probably right... they don't or won't know which one.... but, not because this isn't a possible scenario but more because of the penalties incurred for even thinking about it.... Remember, they have a relationship with Microsoft, and Microsoft still pretty much calls the shots about how they do business, like it or not... It COULD be more like the auto industry -- that's the point. It's NOT.... that's also the point.
Hopefully pressure brought to bear eventually un-jams this juggernaut, but I fear it's a long time (way too long) time in the making and fear (even worse) it may never happen at all.
$40 -- still more extra than I'm willing to pay for something I won't use... What is your source for knowing this cost? (I assumed manufacturers DID get a volume discount... but didn't know how much.... figured at 50%, PRO would be around $100.... didn't figure more of a discount, but it's really beside the point. I shouldn't have to pay if I'm not going to use it, and I don't want to pay the $100 extra to have it delivered without the OS.... )
so, just how do they get pre-imaged? They're certainly not being shipped from the manufacturer (hard drive) that way! They've got staff doing the imaging... highly automated to be sure, but what is it going to take to "not" pre-image one? "Hey, Joe!, don't pre-image that one!" is my guess. And, am I a guy (you're assuming, btw) who wants to be different?, or one who has a specific requirement in a field that should but doesn't have options because of the illegal practices of one monopolistic giant?
Using a car as an example (I hate doing this) it might be like one tire manufacturer insisting through bullying and manipulating that ALL cars are delivered with their specific brand of tires, even though they are very specific and non-general tires, and there is ample evidence of a market for other types of tires (non-studded, low temp, etc)... It would be an unfair market place if consumers had to pay that "tax" (even if labor were involved to remove and replace said tires with other type) to get a product more suitable to their needs.
This isn't an issue of people being pissy and making snippy demands, it's an issue of a marketplace gone awry and still not corrected by the tactics still in practice by one giant firm, albeit practiced in a more nuanced and subtle way.
I won't name them because they already have a name!:-)
Actually, I had similar experiences with other vendors in my same trek, and I didn't want to single this one out... they were the only ones I pressed hard enough to bend on giving me a computer without Windows on it.
About seven years ago I too was looking for a laptop and I wanted one
without Windows on it. I won't divulge the vendor's name. After a
frustrating attempt to explain my "customization" with the service rep,
i.e., a "nude" laptop, he transferred me to his manager.... He at first
declined to agree to sell me one, but after a moment, and a pause he
AGREED... another pause, then he said, "But we'll have to charge you an
extra $100 for it." (I am NOT making this up!) Kind of gives you a relative
feel for what value (or negative value) Windows added to that laptop,
n'est-ce pas?
To the post's question, I am in the similar situation of wanting a new
laptop... Have found several that are very close to everything I want and
need in a laptop, but ALL come with XP Pro -- which I'm assuming adds $100
to $200 to the cost of the machine and I intend to use the machine for linux
ONLY.... and I'm not willing this time to ring one up for MS.
Slashdot Mirror
ummmmm, lawsuits never left.
You can not log in, no tracking occurs whilst not logged in AND while logged in, there is a "PAUSE" button which stops any additions to your search history until you RESUME it. Nice touch.
I disagree with your statement: "...., In the grand grand scheme of things I would say that it is barely even relevant...."
A company (or person for that matter) doesn't have to be curing a disease to be important... It merely has to be important. And Google is that! And, we can argue the nuance of how important, but for me any company that can "verb" its own name has done something (especially considering contextually the verb "Google" is a benign, even good construct, not an expletive).
Google may not produce sera for curing disease but consider Google's impact even on that slice of civilization. I'm willing to bet more than one researcher on more than many occasions has used Google as a research tool to further their work. Hence Google (IMO) probably DOES contribute to curing disease.
Likewise for all of the "non-profit" companies -- Google has impacted their day to day existence too.
I don't think any (from the parent post) "most important tech companies" modifier is necessary when describing Google as one of the most important companies. Google can stand alone on its merit.... and evidence of continued contribution.
There IS already a standard that works pretty well. I started using it in 1984. I had a fairly underpowered, but sufficient word processor called "ed" and created literally hundreds if not thousands of documents for my work. Soon I upgraded to the word processor "sc", a full-screen implementation and then "vi", also a full-screen implementation (oh, okay, vi automatically would only redraw 4 lines if it detected dialup speed connections (they called it baud-rate back then)).
Today my standard is typically vim, a "vi" on steroids.
The standard "format" these word processors manipulated? ASCII. (Of course there are relatives and quite compatible ones at that, but that becomes a long discussion.)
For the record, I agree: Design documents should be easilly written and easilly updated. I prefer a text editor to something where I can have 'really nice' formatting. Its just easier and quicker, and that leads to the documents being more likely to be kept up to date...., but ability and common sense about what documents SHOULD look like is far less likely to be the obstacle than the policy governing design documents.
Your mileage may vary. Good luck! We're counting on you.
Hmmm, didn't realize there were only 22, but I suspect defining what "compliance" means. Certainly POSIX compliance was bandied about glibly when NT was introduced... I assumed POSIX meant POSIX, which for us (we?) in the Unix world mean to include more than just the POSIX API standard.... For example POSIX also includes a User Interface standard which defines a set of utilities, their behavior, and options to modify their behavior (this is basically a definition of the suite of Unix commands found on a typical Unix installation (including vi!)).
I think Microsoft took advantage of:
I certainly was taken by the PR machine back then -- I really thought Microsoft was on its way to joining the open way of doing things. And in my interview process with them, they convinced me it was a new day and a new way for Microsoft. As stated in previous post, behind closed doors the story changed, not so much because the people I interviewed with misled me -- I think they truly believed the PR. It was policy from much higher Microsoft echelons calling the "we're not serious" shots.
What an interesting world it might have become had Microsoft really produced a new OS easily integrated with others. Instead they leveraged their "checkboxed" POSIX NT to get contracts (especially in government) where they otherwise couldn't only to ignore and leave unused the POSIX subsystem.
Whatever happened to the government requirement that systems and technology be POSIX compliant? I know I first was aware of that bent back in the early nineties, because that's when I went to work with Microsoft under the auspices of NT and its "POSIX compliance". It's also when I quit working for Microsoft when at the NT POSIX sub-system presentation (video-taped for posterity's sake) "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the announcement (and I paraphrase), "Before we get started with the presentation, let me make clear that as far as Microsoft is concerned, we don't care about the POSIX sub-system, we don't intend to support it, and we don't intend to do anything with it in the future. It's simply a check box so we can get Government contracts."
I thought the move to POSIX compliant systems was a step in the right direction, and I'm not sure I've seen any news or publicity to the contrary. Guess something's changed...
For the record, a subsequent followup phone call to Larry Kroger at Microsoft confirmed the message in a strong way....
I own one -- you can pretty much move files back and forth freely.... one of the nicest players I've seen, and biggest bangs for the bucks. Very open implementation. Plus, I think it has its own cachet for coolness.
Mes apologies! Mod me redundant.... I just realized the submitter linked to the snopes myth buster for the urban myth. Color me embarrassed.
While you may be using only ten percent of Google, you're certainly using more than ten percent of your own brain.... That (only using ten percent of our brains) is an urban myth.
Well, I don't want to continue this discussion forever, but I would at this point throw in my "insider" knowledge about Microsoft. I worked there. I was one of sixteen on the original NT Beta support team, I was hired because of my unix background.... and at the time Microsoft was grandstanding about "POSIX compliant" new OS.... and they now were going to be part of the open standards interoperability "community"... (this I remember -- it was a cornerstone of the persuasion to get me to accept a position there).
After convincing me they were serious about their posix OS... I found out behind closed doors different... I walked out of one strategy meeting in anger accusing the team that if what they were doing weren't illegal, it was at the very least unethical. Later that week at a posix-subsystem (for NT) technical presentation, the presenter stood up and said (closely paraphrasing here)... "Before we get this presentation started, I want to make it perfectly clear this is a subsystem we don't care about, we don't intend to do anything with -- it's strictly a checkbox to satisfy requirements for getting government contracts."
All this while nervously re-assuring each other the current investigation into MS was over and settled (not the one later for which they were found in violation...).
Clearly to me MS was a company knowing fully what they were doing and why and that their actions could be illegal. But also a company fully confident they could get away with it.
So demand was, apparently, significant for non-Windows machines, but vendors wouldn't have been able to stay in business selling them ?
Never said it was significant... said there was ample evidence there was demand... certainly enough to foster and create a viable market. But the market was so distorted and skewed by Microsoft's actions the market was suffocated.... (exact words used by Microsoft in another scenario I believe, no wait, I guess it was "cut off their air supply"....)
I've read many of your posts -- you're quite versed in technology, seem to have a bit of a bent for Windows... You can read mine, you'll see I have a bent for linux, and unix... I think we can mostly agree to disagree on many of these issues... (you can even jump back in with the last word if you wish...). Enjoyed the chat.
sigh
The thing is, microsoft offers the vendor $99 (i.e. a lower price) per laptop in licencing fees, provided that the vendor ships ALL laptops with the Microsoft OS. In any case, they don't pay per laptop shipped with the Microsoft OS, they pay per laptop shipped. Even yours after you refuse to pay for the OS you won't use.
It's interesting you think that, because if what you describe were true then Microsoft would be continuing a licensing practice in violation of anti-trust laws for which they were found "guilty".
Yeah, but I'm guessing for that extra $50,000 to $100,000 you're getting an enhanced BMW... The scenario here is a request to NOT have something as part of the package. In your example, I seriously doubt a BMW dealer would charge anything if a customer were to ask that the floor mats be removed.
And to the question, "why is it so damn hard to just reformat and install Linux yourself?", obviously whether or not the vendor would sell me a laptop without Windows, I would have to perform the linux install... so implicit in this story is that I am more than happy to accommodate the work necessary to format and install linux.
A monopoly is when there are no practical alternatives.
I guess that's correct! But I'm not claiming "foul" because of a monopoly! I'm crying "foul" because of the illegal tactics of one particular monopoly, Microsoft... (Of course it's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to USE that monopoly to effect an advantage in the market, something for which Microsoft has been found to be in violation.) And, that abuse of monopolistic power by Microsoft has artificially induced into the market the kind of scenario I described.
it will just take an alternative product that enough customers ask for and a competitor prepared to provide it
There is ample evidence enough customers were willing to try other products, but Microsoft negotiated contracts such that vendors could NOT afford to even try to offer these other products.
It would take legislation to *force* manufacturers to develop a product the market *isn't demanding*.
Again, ample evidence existed/exists there is demand for products but vendors are still cowed by Microsoft contracts, etc., to the extent the market can't seem to get off the dime. The damage to the OS and computer market is significant, lasting, resonating, and persists today. I don't love the idea of legislation or government involvement but when one company garners so much of the market and controls it with illegal and bullying tactics sometimes action has to be taken by some entity to re-strike a reasonable equilibrium.
from your post:
You might try installing a linux on a laptop today -- it's much better than it used to be. I currently have linux running on an HP zx5000, wireless and everything working great...(currently typing this up on that HP... btw, 1920x1200 screen, Xorg Xwindows drives it perfectly!). I also have it on my old Dell Inspiron, wireless happens with a pcmcia card, and I have it on a brand new Averitec laptop.... again, everything working perfectly (including the dvd burner -- cool). I gave a Knoppix CD to my friends, and they regularly use that with their old Sony Vaio... boots right up, all devices work, and they access wireless with the pcmcia card.
For the record, I "proxy" mod you interesting, or insightful -- don't know why you got modded funny.
I may actually go that route. Thanks for the links, I'll be looking into them. For my original post (here), I didn't have that option... That was about seven years ago.
Again, thanks for the links.
..., I'm not sure where the meme that "free market economy == every vendor should be required by law to exactly meet my specific requirements" originated from, but it's not even *remotely* accurate
I'm not sure where that meme comes from either... nor do I buy into it (quite frankly, I'm finding the word "meme" a tired saw).
Maybe if you'd read a few words past what you quoted in my post you'd get to my not-put-in-context-in-your-reply-post thesis. (For the record, THAT post is here.)
So, putting aside your comment on the meme that doesn't correlate with my original post, my point was that the situation I encountered doesn't represent a free market because it is perturbed by actions (found illegal by the DOJ.... but never effectively remedied) and practices of Microsoft.
You say, "you [I] are [am] completely free to seek other vendors who might provide products more aligned to your requirements", and normally that's true, but in the distorted OS market, especially then (the time I was describing in my original post), there were no options -- directly attributable to bad behavior by Microsoft.
I think this is the underlying strange-attractor in this whole deal. It isn't really a free-market economy because of the Microsoft field-force waves and their effect on the market. Annoying to say the least.
For the record, the $100 offer (charge to remove windows) was not an opening offer but a capitulation after a lengthy discussion (including the first rep I talked to).... If it had been the opening offer I would have probably been more amenable to a negotiated deal.... but I had to work hard to get just to that point. In a free-market economy (IMO) it shouldn't be that way.
Yeah, not an easy world for those trying to do linux on laptops, but since you mention HP, I'll relate my happy-ending story...
I have the HP zx5000... ordered it knowing I could make full use of the Windows side of it (yes, I do DO Windows, .... sigh). And hopeful I might make inroads by creating a successful dual boot with linux and hopefully get the wireless working without having to resort to an external pcmcia card to do so.
Used Mandrake 10.1, and used the partition re-size out of the box (from Mandrake install), and the entire install went without a hitch! Sweet!
I DID have to purchase a proprietary driver for the wireless... but I was willing to pay $19 for that (from Linuxant).
I LOVE this machine!
And, for the record, out of the box, Mandrake 10.1 recognized and configured and took full advantage of the 1920x1200 resolution screen. It's great!
You're probably right... they don't or won't know which one.... but, not because this isn't a possible scenario but more because of the penalties incurred for even thinking about it.... Remember, they have a relationship with Microsoft, and Microsoft still pretty much calls the shots about how they do business, like it or not... It COULD be more like the auto industry -- that's the point. It's NOT.... that's also the point.
Hopefully pressure brought to bear eventually un-jams this juggernaut, but I fear it's a long time (way too long) time in the making and fear (even worse) it may never happen at all.
$40 -- still more extra than I'm willing to pay for something I won't use... What is your source for knowing this cost? (I assumed manufacturers DID get a volume discount... but didn't know how much.... figured at 50%, PRO would be around $100.... didn't figure more of a discount, but it's really beside the point. I shouldn't have to pay if I'm not going to use it, and I don't want to pay the $100 extra to have it delivered without the OS.... )
Is this REALLY an unreasonable expectation?
Using a car as an example (I hate doing this) it might be like one tire manufacturer insisting through bullying and manipulating that ALL cars are delivered with their specific brand of tires, even though they are very specific and non-general tires, and there is ample evidence of a market for other types of tires (non-studded, low temp, etc)... It would be an unfair market place if consumers had to pay that "tax" (even if labor were involved to remove and replace said tires with other type) to get a product more suitable to their needs.
This isn't an issue of people being pissy and making snippy demands, it's an issue of a marketplace gone awry and still not corrected by the tactics still in practice by one giant firm, albeit practiced in a more nuanced and subtle way.
Actually, I had similar experiences with other vendors in my same trek, and I didn't want to single this one out... they were the only ones I pressed hard enough to bend on giving me a computer without Windows on it.
About seven years ago I too was looking for a laptop and I wanted one without Windows on it. I won't divulge the vendor's name. After a frustrating attempt to explain my "customization" with the service rep, i.e., a "nude" laptop, he transferred me to his manager.... He at first declined to agree to sell me one, but after a moment, and a pause he AGREED... another pause, then he said, "But we'll have to charge you an extra $100 for it." (I am NOT making this up!) Kind of gives you a relative feel for what value (or negative value) Windows added to that laptop, n'est-ce pas?
To the post's question, I am in the similar situation of wanting a new laptop... Have found several that are very close to everything I want and need in a laptop, but ALL come with XP Pro -- which I'm assuming adds $100 to $200 to the cost of the machine and I intend to use the machine for linux ONLY.... and I'm not willing this time to ring one up for MS.