Turns Out Ubuntu Dell Costs $225 More

An anonymous reader writes "One week ago this community discussed the apparent price advantage of Ubuntu Dell over Vista. The article linked to a Dell IdeaStorm page with the status: 'Implemented.' Today the status has changed on that page to 'Reneged: Ubuntu Dell is $225 More Than Windows Dell.' The full price of a Ubuntu Inspiron 1420N is indeed $50 cheaper than the identical hardware configuration with Vista — except that a $275 free upgrade to 2GB memory and a 160-GB hard drive is available for Windows only."

Vista needs the space

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

Haven't people been saying the footprint of Linux is a shitload less than Windows bloat.
You simply don't need the extra on linux.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Which makes having it so much more enjoyable.

Re:Vista needs the space

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you never used KDE _

Re:

[Knuckles (8964)]

ubuntu will automatically start cupsd, even if you don't have a printer

Which can be easily disabled from the Services config in Administration menu.

Re:Vista needs the space

[sqldr (838964)]

sounds like you need to try a different distro :-)

At risk of fanning the gnome/kde flames on this thread already, you could try kubuntu.. i'm not saying it's better, but it is different. You might be happier.

    I've not noticed any of these things in kubuntu, except the movie player thing, and that's likely to be a driver issue. Try configuring the underlying player to use a different rendering target, eg. X11 or opengl instead of Xv.

Re:

[jedidiah (1196)]

I dunno about that.

He's complaining about a large number of items I've never seen under Ubuntu in various versions. I've worked in offices where Ubuntu was the workstation OS/distro of choice for programmers and they didn't seem to have those complaints either.

That guy must be really lucky...

Re:Vista needs the space

[mhall119 (1035984)]

And yet Ubuntu doesn't 'just work'.

As a Ubuntu user since 6.05, I have to say that for me it does 'just work'.

Why is the bottom panel on my desktop missing about 20% of the time? I have to log out and log back in. Usually it comes back, sometimes it takes 2 logins.

I have never had this problem, but it seems your gnome setup has some problems (I'm assuming it's not just your screen resolution not displaying the bottom of the screen).

Why is the application built into Ubuntu to play music named "Movie Player"?

It's not, I've never seen Rythmbox (Ubuntu's music player) called "Movie Player". The "Movie Player" (Totem, I think) can play MP3s, but that isn't what it setup as default for music files.

Why do I just get a black square when playing a movie with Movie Player? If I move the window I see the movie playing, but the black box comes back as soon as I drop the window.

It sounds like your video card driver hasn't properly implemented video playback in X11.

Why, when I explicity specify I want 2 workspace, does the second workspace disappear and I'm left with one for half of my logins? Even when I do get 2 the second one has no panels at all 75% of the time.

Again, I've never had this problem. It seems you have something seriously broken in Gnome. Try creating a new user account and logging in with that and don't change anything with Gnome when you do. If the new account has the same problems, the Gnome install is hosed, re-install it. If the new account is fine, then it's something you did in your account that is causing the problems.

Why can't I Add/Remove certain software from Add/Remove? Why does it even show up on the list with a checkbox if all it is going to is tell me to run Synaptic?

I've heard this complaint before, and honestly it sounds like some stupid configuration. I can't say that I've ever actually used Add/Remove, I prefer synaptic for everything, but this seems a legitimate bug.

Why is the Software Update notification so annoying? I know Linux generally makes poor use of screen space, but why is the popup so huge? Why isn't it transparent like every other popup on a modern desktop?

Uh, huge? It's tiny for me. What is your screen resolution? Are you running 640x480? Because that might be causing some of your other Gnome display problems. And transparent? The notifications I get on Windows XP aren't transparent. Are you using Compiz or Beryl? Those could cause some of your other problems if your video card can't handle them.

Say I unpack an archive to the desktop and it specifies a directory structure for the files. How come the folder icon is hidden underneath the icon for a drive I mounted a few minutes before?

Again, never had this problem. Could be caused by extremely small screen size as I mentioned above.

Why can't the built in Bittorrent client download more than one torrent at a time? Why does it tell me "Error 98" or some other obscure junk if I try?

I never had this problem with the default Bittorrent client, but I'll admit that I installed Azureus because I like it better.

I don't want a network connection icon to show up in the system tray, I'm on a machine that is wired all the time, I know it is on a network, I put it there.

So take if off, what's so hard about that?

Why are desktop icons so huge? 5000 icon sets, all of them bigger than a breadbox.

Icon sets come with different sizes for each icon for different applications. Are you using the biggest size when you don't need it, or again is your screen resolution so low that even 32x32 looks huge?

This is a partial list. Work on these and I will provide another.

Worked on, got any more?

Re:Vista needs the space

[Anthony Rosequist (1110043)]

LOL, that's Ubuntu users for you: "I did not have that problem, therefore it does not exist."

First, that's not what the parent was saying at all. It was more along the lines of:

"I did not have that problem, and you didn't give me enough diagnostic information to adequately help you solve it. You can attempt to find someone else with a similar problem, or we can work on it a little bit longer and try and get more information."

Plus, we don't know if the GP was messing around with things that he shouldn't have. People that are new to Linux (especially if you're having problems) shouldn't be messing with their Gnome install, advanced user settings, or extremely experimental beta eyecandy software, despite how tempting it can be.

Without knowing that information, I think that mhall did a great job addressing AC's problems. He recommended that, even though he wasn't sure exactly what the problem was (since he had never experienced them), he should:

• Check his screen resolution (and possibly video card drivers),
• Not mess with Beryl or Compiz,
• Create a new, default, user account and see if that helps, or
• If he doesn't have much to lose, try re-installing.

You're ridiculing him for some advice that he offered (for free) that was more helpful than most customer service departments (where they get paid), especially given the limited amount of information he had.

Re:Vista needs the space

[Raistlin77 (754120)]

Please don't compare him to professional customer support.

Indeed. mhall doesn't deserve to be insulted in that manner.

Re:

[An Onerous Coward (222037)]

When you propose a fix like that, you really ought to try it first. When I right-click on the network tray icon, I get three options (enable networking, connection information (grayed out) and "about"). None of these things will do what he wants, and to suggest that he didn't try even the most seemingly obvious solutions is a little insulting. In mhall's defense, I've always assumed that the networking icon was removable, simply because I'd never felt any desire to remove it. The volume icon can be remo

Re:Vista needs the space

[syntaxglitch (889367)]

LOL, that's Ubuntu users for you:

Are you still bitter over that one Ubuntu support thread where you acted like a jerk and people didn't magically fix your problem? Holding a grudge for over a year doesn't exactly give you the moral high ground here, you realize.

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Yes, yes I do consider the solution that in fact you have admitted you used to fix the problem to be the solution, because it fixed the problem.

If you followed the advice given in that thread, you would not be getting GRUB error 25 anymore. So it was solved.

In your mind, it seems, the solution was inadequate because the problem was different. The problem wasn't getting a working Ubuntu install with no grub error, it was somehow fixing your unbootable install using the unbootable install itself without you

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Evaded the diagnosis? You evaded the diagnosis by refusing to answer questions, to help out in any way on your end by providing information. You made it into a little game where they had to guess what was going on, and their correct solutions to your problem were inadequate, but you wouldn't do anything to help find the better solution. It's not just that you didn't like that one specific suggestion, you refused any suggestion. Nothing was good enough for you unless it was "press the secret button under

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

That they adhere to that philosophy is a blatant lie, of course, but how was I supposed to know that?

See, and this is exactly the kind of BS posturing that I'm talking about, that your every thread on this subject is full of. An ubuntu installation does not require proprietary hardware. For fixing your problem with what you claimed you had available a piece of proprietary software may have been necessary. Would you rather they said "you could fix your problem with a windows CD, but that would require usin

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

By 'work' you must mean 'boots up'. I shouldn't be suprised at this, since the main effort of the Linux movement seems to be getting it to function in any way at all with a given set of hardware.

By 'work' I mean it has been my primary OS both at home and at work for almost 2 years. It does everything that I need it to do with minimal fuss. Hardware is a major factor in a good Linux experience, and I've always made sure that mine has good working drivers for Linux (even non-free in the case of my nVidia card).

This one I might have to take blame for myself. To be fair, I Add/Removed several music players while trying to find one that would actually play an MP3. At some point one of them successfully alerted me to its need for an MP3 codec as well as directing me to where I could find it. I suspect that Rhythmbox failed to accomplish that. It was probably one of the many that provided absolutely no indication that any operation had taken place at all after I directed it to play an MP3.

Ubuntu 7.04 has improved this quite a bit, I'm pretty sure that anything that uses gstreamer will now tell you if you need a specific codec, and download and install that codec for you if i

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Actually, I've noticed this too. I have a 24" monitor at 1920x1200, nvidia 7900gt, and the available screen area just seems smaller on Ubuntu + Gnome than with Windows. The icons are a lot bigger, the system fonts are bigger. Not to mention, the fonts just aren't as smooth. If I make them smaller, no amount of antialiasing or "cleartype" fiddling in Gnome (I forget what it's actually called, sub-pixel rendering I think), will fix it. As it is, I'm stuck with fonts with a slight rainbow halo that are too big.

I've noticed that by default icons and fonts are larger on Linux than on Windows. I'm not sure if they just assume you'll be using a higher resolution than you do in Windows (which I do, specifically because the linux fonts are big enough to read at the higher resolution), or if they just want the extra pixels for better detail.

I now there is sub-pixel rendering available for Linux fonts, but I don't recall what it is. It may not be installed by default on Ubuntu because of patent issues. If you're gett

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

"Why is the application built into Ubuntu to play music named "Movie Player"?
Because it plays video as well as audio. I thinking Microsoft would get a little bent if they called it Media Player.
Most of your other problems sound like a video driver/X11/ Monitor issue. I had some of the same problems.
1. What video card are you using? Do you have the correct drivers selected. If it is an ATI then the historically bad ATI Linux drivers may be the issue.
2. What monitor is selected. This is the one that got me. I

Re:

[VanessaE (970834)]

I've seen a lot of piss-poor arguements in Windows' favor in my time, but this one just takes the cake. According to Microsoft, Vista requires a minimum of 15GB of disk space (I suspect it's actual needs are less). Linux requires a minimum of about 1.5GB, and about 7.5GB if you have a full system with all the eye candy, all the trimmings, and a handful of third-party apps like OpenOffice. That's a difference of 6.5GB or so from Vista's minimum requirement, and 6.5GB of disk space is just plain pocket cha

Re:Vista needs the space

[B'Trey (111263)]

At the very least, if you price two machines with identical hardware specs, and you don't come out at least a little cheaper without Vista, you are getting RIPPED OFF, plain and simple.

Speaking purely from a business stand-point and ignoring all philosophical issues, this is not definitively true. That is, it may be true that you're being overcharged but it isn't necessarily so. You're looking at one particular cost - the cost of purchasing the operating system - and assuming that every other cost is the same. It may very well not be, even on identical hardware. It's been well documented that Dell gets paid to load crapware on the system. That's revenue that they do not or may not get on the Linux machine, which means they must increase the price to reach the same margin. Its also quite possible that other cost, such as support cost, are increased for Linux machines. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as people using Linux calling in more because they're less familiar with the OS, or help desk people requiring additional training or being harder to find. The bottom line is that computer sellers operate on razor thin margins, and there's a lot more that goes into price calculations than what Microsoft charges for their OS. That doesn't mean that we should set back and pay unwarranted mark-ups without questioning them, but it does mean that simplistic statements such as the one you made above don't tell the whole story.

Astounding.

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

There's two things I need every morning - a cup of coffee, and a blatant "flame Microsoft" Slashdot article. Bravo.

Just buy it with Vista (XP would be better)

[Lightjumper (532700)]

and download and install Linux on it.. Maybe Dell should include a free linux cd with it..

Re:

[Evets (629327)]

I think that's the point. It improves Vista's sales numbers while showing that the Linux product has very weak sales.

Why would anyone not buy the Vista version if a quick download and a 30 minute install nets you bargain basement upgrades?

Re:

[mspohr (589790)]

Rather than Dell having different 'models' of computer with Vista and Linux, what I would like to see is have an option for every Dell to 'customize' it with Linux instead of Vista. When you buy a computer, they currently let you customize it by choosing various hardware and software options. The 'Operating System' customization screen currently only offers the option of different Vista flavors. It would be nice to have a Linux OS option on that page (with an appropriate credit on the cost). This would

Last time I checked....

[oliverthered (187439)]

Last time I checked you could disagree with the EULA, send the Vista disk back to M$ and get your money back and then install ubuntu. Why not do that?

Re:Just buy it with Vista (XP would be better)

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

By telling people to just buy Vista, you are only allowing Microsoft's hold on the software industry to continue. This is all about free choice, and I for one am glad that there are people out there who are keeping an eye on these things and pointing them out to Dell and its customers.

I'm not eating $225 for 'free choice.' Incidentally, I don't want Ubuntu anyway. What I want is a laptop that I know will work with Linux. As long as the Windows and Linux versions have the same hardware, I'll buy either one since I'm going to wipe and reinstall anyway.

The point is that this gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over other OS providers and it must be dealt with.

Love the use of the passive voice there - who's doing the 'dealing'? Not sure what is 'fair' anyway. Do you mean it's a violation of Sherman anti-trust? If not, you're just whining.

If you want Vista, fine! But if you don't want it, you shouldn't have to buy it. It's that simple!

And I 'should' have a pony. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work on 'should.' The fact is, Dell does get a lot of revenue from pre-loaded crapware, cost savings by making essentially identical Windows computers in volume, etc. The best you have to hope for is the Linux version doesn't cost *more*, and I do agree $225 is excessive. However, the wipe/reinstall option is always available.

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

One of the reasons they make you do the stupid things over the phone before replacing the hardware is because a lot of time the stupid things work.

Not everyone with a computer is as competent as you are. Also, there is no way to tell how competent you are outside of listening to you explain it. As most of us already know, certifications and degrees don't necessarily mean you know your stuff. Although the the lack of them are used as reasons not to give out raises and such quite often.

Generally, what I do is

Fluctuating price

[MoonFog (586818)]

Seems like it's hard to determine the exact difference. From a post in the linked article:

The price has been updated and the Ubuntu system is now $25 cheaper, thought the RAM Upgrade to 2GB will expire tomorrow. The price discrepancies, and promotions, fluctuate too much..."

And from a blog linked to from the linked article:

Update 07/11/07: The given components and prices on the 1420 Notebook have been updated. The price difference is now $25, in favor of the Ubuntu system. Note that the RAM Upgrade expires tomorrow for the 1420N. Among frequent price and component discrepancies, price fluctuations, and Windows favored promotions, Im not sure if Dell is serious about selling open-source [as Dell calls them] systems, rather than generating publicity. Considering that expected sales are at 1% of total systems shipped, and Microsoft could break Dell in half by increasing Windows License costs or decreasing co-marketing funds, I have no choice but to assume the latter.

I don't see a problem here

[Sunkist (468741)]

Other than stating the upgrades to windows are FREE! You still save $45. What I am missing?

Inspiron Notebook 1420 N
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo T5250 (1.5GHz/667Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
Ubuntu version 7.04
2GB Shared Dual Channel3 DDR2 at 667MHz
Size: 160GB2 SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)

Price: $774

Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo T5250 (1.5GHz/667Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
Genuine Windows® Vista Home Basic Edition
Anti-glare, widescreen 14.1 inch display (1280x800)
FREE! 2GB2 Shared Dual Channel3 DDR2 at 667MHz
FREE! 160GB4 SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
24X CD writer/DVD Combo Drive
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Mini-Card

Price:$819

Re:I don't see a problem here

[MoonFog (586818)]

Those were the prices quoted in the original Slashdot story that was about Ubuntu computers being $50 cheaper. A post further down talks about configuring it and it "now" is $225 more (free hardware upgrades etc) and then ANOTHER post even further down mentions that it's back to being $25 cheaper.. I'm getting a headache just trying to follow this.

DUH!

[Lumpy (12016)]

I love how these "revelations" happen far later when the rest of us that looked at it saw right away that the "specials" or "instant rebates" only apply to the windows machines.

There has been people here on Slashdot posting for a few months that the Open source and now linux laptops are in fact more expensive by around $200.00.

Statistics

[ilovegeorgebush (923173)]

"Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything." ~Gregg Easterbrook

I'm quite impressed how the (quite obvious) spin was placed on this claim. It's only $275 more if you WANT to upgrade.
Still, i'm definitely disappointed in Dell; i'd have liked that upgrade for free too...(Although Vista would need it to Pagefile usage, whereas Ubuntu would use it for the hoards of FOSS that's available...)

AKA Microsoft is paying for the upgrade

[haplo21112 (184264)]

Or rather Dell is getting a kickback from microsoft that is paying for the upgrade.

And this arouses suspicion because...?

[Mr. Roadkill (731328)]

Dell are hardly known for offering sane or consistent pricing across models or market segments - try browsing their website some time as a home user, then as various classes of business customer. Why should it come as any surprise that they've omitted a special offer from a machine with a non-standard OS?

Personally, I have no plans to upgrade to Vista any time soon - at least not at home. If faced with the prospect of getting a machine with Ubuntu at $X, or a machine with double the RAM and a bigger hard drive with Vista at $X, I'd take the machine with Vista, thank you very much. Shrink the partition as far as practical, install Ubuntu, and you're ahead - you've got the higher-spec machine, AND the ability to boot into something that the Dull PhoneMonkeys won't hang up over. Okay... that's a path a geek would take, not a regular consumer, but I doubt at this time that there would be very many non-geeks opting for Ubuntu over windows anyway on a new Dell.

Besides... if you're going to criticise Vista, you should at least have first-hand experience of what it is that you're criticising.

Nothing like a good knee-jerk in the morning...

[Dekortage (697532)]

So Dell's base 1420 with Ubuntu costs $747 [dell.com] with these specs:

• Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo T5250 (1.5GHz/667Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
• Ubuntu version 7.04
• Anti-glare, widescreen 14.1 inch display (1280x800)
• Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
• 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz
• 160GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
• 24X CD Burner/DVD Combo Drive
• Intel® 3945 802.11a/g Mini-card
• No Camera
• 56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
• Integrated High Definition Audio

Meanwhile, Dell's Windows equivalent has exact same specs, except for these differences:

• Genuine Windows® Vista Home Basic Edition instead of Ubuntu
• Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Mini-Card instead of the Intel 802.11a/g card

And the Windows version costs $869 [dell.com]. So the Ubuntu version is $122 cheaper and has a better WiFi card.

Remind me again... what did you step in?

CORRECTION

[Dekortage (697532)]

Sorry, I transposed numbers on the Ubuntu price -- the machine is $774, not $747, so the difference is $95, not $122.

My apologies. But Dell's Ubuntu system is still cheaper.

Moving price targets

[Dekortage (697532)]

And, checking the Windows price again, it's dropped $50 from when I checked it before (for a price difference of $45).

I give up. Maybe if I check again in 20 minutes, Dell's Windows systems really will cost less than Ubuntu.

FFS, isn't this a no-brainer?

[WIAKywbfatw (307557)]

Isn't this a no-brainer?

1. Buy the PC that gives you the best hardware for the lowest price. If that means taking a Windows PC that has "free" extra memory and a bigger hard disk drive then do it.

2. Shrink the Windows partition (that extra disk space is a boon), install Ubuntu and/or other operating systems of your choice.

3. Go about your business as normal.

4. If you ever have to speak to Dell tech support, you have the additional benefit of being able to tell them that you're using a Windows system (true), and them not giving you the cold shoulder when you tell them that you're using Ubuntu, etc.

5. If you sell your PC at sometime in the future you give yourself a more attractive package to sell and thus recoup more of your initial sale price. More RAM, more disk space, Windows Vista Home all have a value, and the Vista Home alone may make a huge difference to the resale price on eBay. Remember, 90 percent of PC users won't even have heard of Linux, so why cut them out of your resale equation?

Dell is simply trying to protect its standard business model, which includes making money from pre-installing offers from third parties (such as ISPs and AV vendors) on their Windows installations. There's no reason why you can't let them do that and still benefit from their reluctance to abandon that model.

Saving $50 (or is it now $25?) if it means half as much memory and half as much disk space (1GB/80GB vs 2GB/160GB) seems to be a false economy.

Actually it is about a $600 cheaper

[codepunk (167897)]

1. Does not come with all that crap ware installed add $200 in savings for a great deal of time cleaning the trash off of the system.

2. Add office professional (ships with open office) I am sure that is at least a $200 savings.

3. Scratch having to take the machine into a shop every three months to clean all the spyware, crap etc out of the machine to make it actually work again. There is another few hundred bucks $200

I did not even list the other software it ships with and the equivalents would likely run you into the thousands.

Who knows what a Dell costs?

[dpbsmith (263124)]

Dell's prices fluctuate more rapidly and more widely than the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Identical systems may vary by significant amounts depending on whether you talk to a "home office" or "small business" rep... or whether you talk to them on Tuesday or Wednesday... or whether you get the price on the Web or over the phone or in a mailing.

I'm not sure anyone knows what a Dell costs unless they are a business negotating a deal for a few thousand of them.

No biggie

[PalmKiller (174161)]

It makes sense, you gotta have 2gb of ram for vista to even perform marginally well...and it requires more disk space too.

Bought my Dell-Ubuntu Desktop

[World.Pop(MPAA) (998700)]

Being relatively a noob to Linux I decided to purchase a desktop with Ubuntu from Dell and have nothing but great things to say about it. I usually build my own computers, which is an easy process for me using Windows because it's easy to guarantee combatibility with the OS. But now with Vista out, my fears of losing all my purchased apps, plus a desire not to get locked into another cost ineffective software solution lead me to trying Ubuntu.

In the past, I've tried different distrobutions (SUSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Slackware, among others) and have always taken it off my system because some annoying little hardware incompatibility caused me problems. So, while Dell may be charging a little extra for Ubuntu, I think there's something to be said about getting a Linux computer that will "just work" right out of the box.

I also have to mention that I don't feel cheated. I have a great system, 20" Widescreen Flat Panel, 2 GB of RAM, Core 2 Duo (1.X can't remember), the NVIDIA GFX (7300 Lite or something) card, 250 GB SATA HDD, DVD+-RW Dual Layer and another DVD-ROM as well. As some of the other posters had mentioned, this may have not been the "perfect deal" but I only paid about $1000 for the whole system. To me this is a sight better than paying $900 for the same machine using Vista and then having to repurchase Dreamweaver, Flash and Fireworks; does VS 2005 work on Vista?

Funny enough though, while Vista's having all these compatibility issues with the previous generation's software, I'm using the old Studio 8 suite on Linux under WINE and it's running faster than it did in Windows.

I call schenanagans

[ProppaT (557551)]

Some anti-MS or pro-Linux person, whichever, was obviously sitting on Dell's website waiting for this to be the case.

Anyone who goes to Dell's site or follows any of the bargain sites (fatwallet, slickdeals, techbargains, etc) knows that Dell deals change on a daily basis. One day you'll be able to buy a PC cheap without a monitor, the next day the purchase will require purchase of a monitor, the next day they'll throw in a RAM upgrade out of nowhere. I know last week there was a deal for a Linux box for around $250 off of Dell's site. They do this to keep people checking back. When someone sees a deal that looks good, they'll eventually make an impulse buy.

This isn't news worthy at all.

Three Things To Think About Dell Win Upgrades

[WillAffleckUW (858324)]

1. Price for upgrade to 160 GB due to how much space WinVista burns up on your hard drive with virus-prone stuff you won't realize is installed - $0

2. Price for upgrade to memory due to how lousy an OS WinVista is - $0

3. Realizing you got more by choosing Ubuntu Linux instead - Priceless

Re:What's the incentive?

[Geek_3.3 (768699)]

Or Dell really DOES make a lot of money off of the crap-o bloatware (6 month's free AOL etc) and this is their way of compensating.

Re:What's the incentive?

[Shados (741919)]

Dell's promotions and stuff is err..."dynamic", to say the least. You can find the same system at like 5 different price depending where you look. So its no surprise that stuff like that would happen.

Re:What's the incentive?

[MoonFog (586818)]

Considering it's already down (see my other post in this thread), I guess it's safe to say that Dell's dynamic pricing moves faster than Slashdot's submission acceptance system.

Re:What's the incentive?

[FlyByPC (841016)]

Considering it's already down (see my other post in this thread), I guess it's safe to say that Dell's dynamic pricing moves faster than Slashdot's submission acceptance system.

It's the Slashdot corollary to the Cartoon Law of Falling Anvils (Law IX) [funnies.paco.to]:
Everything moves faster than Slashdot submissions.

Re:

[PhoenixK7 (244984)]

Since the Ubuntu price is now back at the $50 less mark, it makes me wonder whether this was just a glitch where one machine was updated first and then the other came later in the day, or whether they're actually listening. On some levels, it does actually look like they're listening (Installing Ubuntu, and the ideastorm site indicates junkware-less machines are coming, among other things), and frankly it's a welcome change. How many other gigantic computer manufacturers display this sort of behavior. Wh

Re:What's the incentive?

[LaughingCoder (914424)]

There is no conspiracy. They are simply reacting to competitive pressures. They probably determined that Linux laptop sales would not be dramatically higher with the extra RAM promotion since they don't really have any competition for Linux laptops; they are the only game in town among the big vendors. Conversely, in the Windows world I think HP is eating their lunch (HP is heavily discounting their new Santa Rosa dvx5 series), and so they need these discounts to shore up sales.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

No conspiracy here. Dell has very odd pricing plans, bonuses, sales, and specials that change all of the time. You can configure the same computer from three different locations on the Dell website and come up with 5 different prices. They typically offer "upgrades like memory, 19in LCD, HD etc on bundled deals that are even cheaper then without the upgrades. This is regardless of the OS the machine comes with.

Given the choices on their various buying portals, it should be no surprise for advertising sa