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?"

Well, for one thing..

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.

Re:Well, for one thing..

Conversely, when people buy Windows machines, hardware makers think people will only want/need Windows drivers. Many of those people will install some other OS, but how are the businesses supposed to know about that? In capitalism, buying decisions are the primary means of sending messages to the producers.

Re:Well, for one thing..

In capitalism, buying decisions are the primary means of sending messages to the producers.

Agreed, but I'd think being specific as a consumer where possible would be good. That's why when I recently bought my Dell, I bought it with Windows instead of Linux. (It was a good $300 cheaper for better hardware!) Then, when the computer arrived, I rejected the on-first-boot MS Eula and got a refund for a little over $50 dollars. This way, I still got what I wanted, and I was able to send the most accurate message as well. The article that gave me the idea: How to Get a Windows Tax Refund [linux.com]

Re:Well, for one thing..

Yes; I went over to Best Buy the other day to get a meatspace look at an eee. I had no intention of leaving with one, of course. But I made sure to let the (unusually knowledgeable this time) personnel know that the XP edition was useless to me.

This doesn't mean they'll run off and hold a shareholder's meeting about it, but next time one of them is in a meeting and hears "No one wants the Lx version" they'll know better.

Baby steps.

Re:Well, for one thing..

I guess I'll be buying from Dell from now on. I tried to get the "Windows Tax Refund" from HP after buying a machine pre-installed with Windows from them, and they were very rude and in the end would not refund my money. Buying a machine with Linux preinstalled provides a financial backing to an alternative choice, namely the ability to buy a machine that doesn't come bundled with an operating system you will not be using. Unfortunately, many vendors do not offer this option, or the even better option of buying a machine without *anything* pre-installed.

Re:Well, for one thing..

Also, if the PC/notebook/whatever has some special features - e.g. buttons - the preinstalled Linux will have them mapped to sensible functions. It's the polishing.

laptops yes to maybe, pc's and servers no

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.

Re:laptops yes to maybe, pc's and servers no

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.

I don`t agree with that at all. There is still plenty of hardware out there that is simply not supported, and even more so hardware that is supported, but requires some tweaking. To an experienced Linux user, having to patch alsa to get line in support might not be a big deal, and checking against hardware compatibility lists before buying parts is always a good idea, but the point stands that neither of these are things which someone who is new to Linux is going to want to go through.

And I think thats really what pre-installed Linux is about. It's not for experienced Gentoo users who have no issue tweaking and who know what hardware is well supported. It's for people who have heard a lot about this "Linux" thing lately and what to give it a try.

With a pre-installed machine you are getting hardware which has been chosen for you and is known to work well with Linux. You are also getting a certain amount of "polish". Chances are the media buttons on your keyboard/case will do something sensible right out of the box, your video capture card will work without any configuring, etc..

Re:Well, for one thing..

Not necessarily. Last time I checked, the Linux machines used Intel wireless and nVidia video cards, where the Windows models used ATI cards and I some other brand of wireless.

Principle is seldom cheap.

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.

Make your principles cost them.

One of the best way to vote with your dollars is to buy a Windows machine in a place where you can definitely return it and insist on a full refund, including taking it to the small claims court if needed. If need be make an order from France and insist that they unbundle, however there are a number of US states and other places where you can get your Windows machine and then return the Windows. Be very careful not to open any packaging that you don't have to to get to the machine and check your local web sites about how to do it.

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 [penguincomputing.com] 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.

Re:Principle is seldom cheap.

Nobody said anything about paying for bleeding edge. You can choose to pay more to support the wider project (FOSS) and have your computer the way you want it. But it is a choice.

I would choose to pay slightly more, because it tells the manufacturers that I want to use Linux, and I'd really like them to supply Linux drivers for their hardware.

There is a different argument as to whether you should pay more to Dell et al, or buy the cheaper machine and donate the extra to a FOSS project. I'm not sure which option is preferable there.

To make a point

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.

Re:To make a point

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.

Assuming the retailer has read the EULA, that is.

Depending on the country you're in, they may or may not be obliged to refund the cost of Windows. Very few countries where they would be have included in such legislation "and the retailer must make it easy".

Forcing you to spend an hour on the phone to a potplant reading from a script and training staff in a draconian refund policy (but not the customer's legal rights) are just two ways retailers use to duck out of honouring your statutory rights.

I've often thought of this

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.

Not every PC costs more with Linux

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.

keep looking, they are out there

look at Novatech [novatech.co.uk] 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 [novatech.co.uk]
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

If you can install it yourself, that's nice, ...

... but pretending that every computer user out there can install an operating system is just delusional. Yes, there are people for whom clicking on "ok" several times (or, g0d forbid, getting the computer to boot from something other than its HDD) is an insurmountable task. They hear "install an operating system" and immediately know that they cannot do it. Regardless of how simple it may seem to you. It's not Solitaire, a web browser, or outlook (express), so they cannot do it and do not even want to try learning it.

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).

Ok

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?)

support?

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!

Why buy a pre-built computer?

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.

Best of both worlds

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.

It demonstrates that there's a demand

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.)

simple matter of opportunity cost

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?

Re:You should definitely pay the "tax"

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.

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?

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?

Every voice probably counts for something? That should really inspire the next generation.

So pay the Microsoft tax and save a few bucks. 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.

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.