Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Oct 2008 10:27 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Sunday we reported on an interview with an MSI manager, who stated that internal research had shown that the return rate for the Linux version of MSI's Wind netbook was four times as high as that of the Windows XP version. He claimed that the unfamiliarity of people with Linux was the culprit. This claim sparked some serious discussion around the net, but now MSI's statement is being repeated by Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu.
Thread beginning with comment 332871
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: GJ apologists
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 23:42 UTC in reply to "GJ apologists"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

and the linux machines are coming back in droves.


Where did you get that from?

The return rate for the linux machines is higher than for Windows ... because some purchasers are unfamiliar with Linux and just assumed that their purchase was a Windows machine.

I believe the original quote from MSI was that the return rate for Linux was four times higher than it was for Windows.

OK then ... Linux machines are being returned because the purchaser expected Windows. Understandable.

Why are the Windows machines being returned?

Maybe because XP Home doesn't connect to business networks?

What other reason could there be?

(Warning for MS apologists ... any answer that indicates that the return rate for Windows is insignificant will also reveal that the return rate for Linux is also insignificant ... because of the context of the original quote from MSI. It was stated as a ratio, not as an absolute number).

Edited 2008-10-07 23:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: GJ apologists
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 00:30 in reply to "RE: GJ apologists"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why are the Windows machines being returned? Maybe because XP Home doesn't connect to business networks? What other reason could there be?


Maybe these particular netbook machines would get returned, also?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/100708-asus-reports-virus-loa...

This report suffers from the common media misdirection in trying to conflate the virus problem with the machines, rather than with the OS that is installed on the machine ... but references to "D drive" and to "recycled.exe" rather give it away, don't they?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: GJ apologists
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 00:33 in reply to "RE: GJ apologists"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What does that have to do with anything? The origional quote was

We have done a lot of studies on the return rates and haven’t really talked about it much until now. Our internal research has shown that the return of netbooks is higher than regular notebooks, but the main cause of that is Linux. People would love to pay $299 or $399 but they don’t know what they get until they open the box. They start playing around with Linux and start realizing that it’s not what they are used to. They don’t want to spend time to learn it so they bring it back to the store. The return rate is at least four times higher for Linux netbooks than Windows XP netbooks.


I would take that to mean that if not for linux, people would return the winds for whatever reason people normally return notebooks.

The fact that people return xp loaded netbooks at the same rate as xp loaded notebooks doesn't address my point at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: GJ apologists
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 01:41 in reply to "RE[2]: GJ apologists"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What does that have to do with anything? ...

I would take that to mean that if not for linux, people would return the winds for whatever reason people normally return notebooks. The fact that people return xp loaded netbooks at the same rate as xp loaded notebooks doesn't address my point at all.


The point is this ... the original quote stated the return rate as a ratio. Not as an absolute number.

You have no basis for thinking that the return rate for Linux is "in droves".

You know only that the return rate for Linux is four times whatever it is for Windows. Hence, if the return rate for Windows is insignificant (due only to failed hardware) ... then the return rate for Linux is quite low. If the return rate for Linux is really "in droves" as you thought ... then the return rate for Windows is also high.

Another point ... returns of Windows machines due to failed hardware would be matched by the failed hardware rate for returns of Linux machines. The hardware itself is "agnostic" of the OS ... so some of the returns of Linux machines are also due to failed hardware.

You know also that the common reason for returning Linux is that some people who ended up with a Linux machine did not know what that actually meant ... and hence they returned the machine simply because it was not what they thought they were buying.

In other words, despite your dearest wishes to do so ... you actually can't actually make a case for a black mark against Linux out of this at all.

Edited 2008-10-08 01:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4