OSNews

I prefer Windows.

Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?

Actually I did it on purpose to prove a point. I am glad I succeded.

You are purposfully posting offtopic for being modded down?

Wouldn't it be better to just skip discussions of articles you are not interested in?

So you admit the purpose of your post was not only irrelevant to the story and off-topic, but purposefully trying to stir up the ardor of the thin-skinned?

No wonder you got modded down.

Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?

He didn't say that. He was talking about his own personal needs, not yours. What you need is your own business.

Earth calling Jon Dough.

Name one way in which the average user will find GNU/Linux superior to Windows ... let alone OS X.

http://www.beryl-project.org/

Ahhh yes, experimental software that provides you with useless effects.

I'm sure people will fall head over heels for that, when given the choice between it, OS X, and Vista.

I am glad that you agree , its a nice change from your usual self.

You know what would be impressive , you actually formulating a clear and precise demand for something that would impress you for real , who know's you might just get it.

Having someone install it for you is not the problem, most people would be happy to just have a blank box.

The problem is having to pay for Windows when you're not going to use it.

really don't get why people think there a dire need to have pre-installed Linux boxes. 99% of the people who load up Linux on a box wouldn't stand for someone else loading their OS for them

I think there are different target groups.

Those who will do their won customized installation anyway get the advantage of having a fully setup reference installation: which modules are loaded, how xorg.conf looks like, etc

Another group are people who might use custom installations on their own systems but would not midn having a vendor supported version on a second machine in the house or at a relative's place.

Depending on the installed distribution there is another group: people who never do anything else than what they got initially, i.e. do not buy additional hardware or software, more or less use it like a TV set or a type writer.

This is good. Now that Microsoft have been forced to act competitively, we are finally seeing some progress.

Cultists believe legislation mandating "open source" (when they mean GPL) is competition.

That is not what I'm talking about. We already know about your OSS fixation. I'm talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems, by

a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.

And you say that closed-source software engenders choice. Ha.

And still ... .4% of sales
How can you measure a free operating system by sales?
There is no way that .4% is accurate. For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux. Then there are dual-boot machines which make up the majority of Linux installs. The real figure for Linux installs is closer to 4% than .4%. Once systems begin to be sold pre-installed (Not what Dell does) by system vendors, there is a chance that more people might begin appreciate OSS.

The problem is that 90% of users vote with their arses. So all these 'market share' figures mean very little. If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.

I'm talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems

Microsoft has always worried about piracy.

OEMs get a fantastic deal on the OEM copy of Windows, and it would have been very easy to rip Microsoft off by reporting more sales of alternative OS's.

OEM's always had the opportunity to sell a retail copy of Windows with the PC's they were selling.

How can you measure a free operating system by sales?

Actually I was using the .4% showing on web logs and wrongly using the term sales.

.4% is in fact the installed base of Linux.

For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux.

Actually, the 60% comes from counting PARKED DOMAINS hosted by large hosting companies.

The majority of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.

If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.

But they don't have to. The OEM price for Windows is around 40$ on a Dell.

As I've noted, people prefer to pay for pirated cd of Windows than download Linux for free.

As I've said, Gartner found that up to 80% of the PC's with Linux installed have Linux replaced with a pirated version of Windows.

Edited 2006-11-14 04:53

) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).

totally off topic here but why do some people think that BeOS was killed by MS?

Heck Apple did plenty of damage to them long before they decided to go x86.

In my opinion the only thing that killed BeOS was an egomaniac at the helm of the company.

- please feel free to mod this down as it truly is off topic!

a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.

Aren't you aware how long ago this was the case? (Hint: Nearly a decade). Isn't it time to move on, psychologically speaking?

Any evidence for those claims?

No? Thought so....

Why not? It's perfectly doable - just like building your own home workstation/server.

You're going to build your own laptop?

WEll no and naturally that would be the exception for me.

I'd still price compatible laptops from all vendors and if I could get a laptop with windows installed and put linux on it after purchase I'd go that route if it were more affordable and offered the features I want.