Why You Can't Buy a Naked PC

ZDOne writes "A piece up on ZDNet looks at the issue of naked PCs. ZDNet UK phoned around all the major PC vendors and not one of them would sell a machine without Windows on it. IT professionals are being forced to adopt Microsoft's operating systems — even if they tell their PC supplier they want a system free of Microsoft software. On the other hand, even if it's almost impossible to buy a PC without an operating system installed, companies like Dell and HP are now committed to supporting Linux as well. 'Murray believes there is a market for Linux in the UK but is also aware of the issues facing any large supplier who wants to make Linux boxes available. "It means diverting production lines and that is a lot of money and so we have to prove the business case," he said. However, he made it clear that he is enthusiastic about the idea and wants to make it work. "We just have to show it is worthwhile," he said.'"

Why does it matter if it's free?

[Overzeetop]

I don't get it. You get the Win for "free" (or less) due to the nagware installed. Why not just get the pc with linux-capable components, let the advertizers pay for your unused copy of windows, and install your favorite flavor of linux (or whatever you plan on using)?

I have yet to get a new pc I didn't re-image or install from scratch anyway. If I used linux I'm certain I wouldn't like the vendor's setup any more than I like their win installs. Too many custom setting to get these kinds of things to work they way we use them. If the windows is effectively free, and you have to do a reinstall anyway, why not just ignore it?

Oh, right - it's far more appropriate to whine about it.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[JesseL]

How do you figure you're getting windows for free? I guarantee that the vendor is paying Microsoft for the license (even if it's heavily discounted), and they're not going to just swallow that cost - it will get passed on to you.

Sure, I blame MS, but...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I think it's a bit more complicated. Sure we know that, historically, Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices like "the Microsoft Tax". But I would think that Dell, HP, and the others are probably equally scared of people like my friend "Joe". He's cheap as (fill in your preferred perjorative here), and if he could save a few bucks buying a PC without an OS he'd do it. Problem is, he is not tech savvy in the least - so he'd get some cut-rate version of Windows one way or the other, try - and fail - to install it, then spend hours on the phone with Dell arguing over "why their computer is broken". I've tried helping him with tech problems over the phone before, and I'll tell you - it's like pulling teeth getting just basic information from him.

When the vendors claim they don't want to sell naked PCs because of the potential support nightmare, I believe them. It's not the Slashdot crowd that's the problem; but there are 100 "Joe"s for every 1 Slashdotter.

Preinstalled ensures that drivers exist and work

[tepples]

We Linux guys are picky enough we know exactly which distro and what version of that distro, and which of all the available packages we want installed - and we'd probably rather do it ourselves, anyways. So yeah, there's little point in whining, except for that statistics thing.

And the tendency of too many hardware manufacturers to 1. not provide Linux or *BSD drivers, 2. not describe their hardware in enough detail to allow the free software community to develop and maintain its own drivers, 3. silently replace the chipset with an incompatible chipset in a revision of the same make and model of hardware, and 4. promote such incompatible hardware to OEMs. Buying a PC with preinstalled Ubuntu OS at least makes sure that your PC contains Linux-compatible hardware.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Its discounted sure, but there is also a lot of other revenue they make when Windows is preinstalled. Google (or some other search provider) pays to have thier search engine set as the default, AOL pays to have thier crapware installed. McAfee pays to have thier 60 free-trial installed. etc, etc, etc.

I don't know that any real numbers have ever been released, but many analysts I've read think the main PC sellers actually make money just by including Windows because of all the other stuff they install on the PC with it.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[Seumas]

You are PAYING for that copy of Windows.

Also, I have no idea what they are talking about with regarding to having to divert production lines. I can order a cheeseburger minus the tomato and they don't have to make it on a separate production line. They just... don't put that on it.

Re:They pay Dell

[Duhavid]

You are assuming that the amounts paid by the entities described
are passed on to the consumer in some way. It is entirely possible
that the amounts find their way, in part or in whole, to the
companies bottom line instead.

there's not enough demand

[b17bmbr]

I'd wager that there's not enough consumer demand (or business consumers) for naked PC's. but there are other factors as well. one, there is but one windows, and dell, et al., can taylor it to their machines and make it work at least out of the box. no, they don't have the control over it as they would linux, but they have enough. when you screw with the machine, it's you screwing with it. and help is much easier, and cheaper, when there's a single OS. imagine having to figure out the distro, the kernel, etc. it'd be a disaster.

that linux is "free" in all senses for you and me, doesn't make it free for dell, etc. to add an OS would be very expensive and to provide none (for every comptuer), would terribly diminish their product. the OS for dell is a complementary good without which, they couldn't sell their product. not to defend MS or dell, but the truth is, MS is well within their rights to demand that dell sell a copy with every machine to get a volume discount, ability to modify it, etc. but the bottom line is that there just isn't enough interest to justify naked PC's. however, notice Dell's server line. you can get them, which ought to tell you something.

Who's your Daddy now?

[BillGatesLoveChild]

In 1994 I tried to buy a bare desktop PC from Dell or Gateway. Since it was to replace my old dead IBM PC (dead after 13 months), I didn't need a new OS. But both Dell and Gateway insisted I buy a new license of Windows anyway.

These days when I buy a laptop, it comes with Windows. When the laptop dies, I can't transfer the license to another PC. They simply don't even provide OS or recovery CDs/DVDs.

So much for the DOJ's Anti-trust agreement with Microsoft. Nothing has changed.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[Copid]

This is one of the reasons why I can't stand the default install on any off-the-shelf computer. Normally, it takes a while before enough useless shit has made its way onto a Windows install to "ripen" it to the point where it's easier to reinstall than to fix it. If you buy a machine from Compaq or some similar company, it already comes most of the way eroded for you. I have a hard enough time training users not to install 50 different search toolbars, pointless background tasks, redundant time sync tools, and general spyware. Having AOL's toolbar and teeming hordes of other resource hungry, registry eating pieces of trash pre-installed isn't helping any.

Re:How Can I Buy An Apple Computer W/O An OS

[will592]

The point is that no one would complain about Microsoft refusing to sell a computer without Windows on it. If Apple was strong-arming Dell,HP and whichever other manufacturers do this to install OS X on their machines I think people would have the same complaints.

Re:Servers, but what about clients?

[init100]

If they added 'FreeDOS', 'Linux', or 'No OS' to the 'Operating System' choice option the whole deal would be quite a lot more obvious and available. If that's what they're actually interested in.

But then, people might really start asking questions they don't want to answer.

Re:Why not just build one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because is easier for someone to type "format c:/"
and subtract $70 from the price than for their
customer to assemble a computer from parts.

The fact that they don't is due to a predatory monopoly
distorting the free market.

Why do YOU think that linux users should assemble their
own machine?

Re:How Can I Buy An Apple Computer W/O An OS

[dwandy]

If this discussion was about buying a Microsoft PC without Windows on it ... then you might have a point.

This is about independent companies seemingly unable to offer an alternative when alternatives exist.

Ford, GM, et.al offer tires from one than one manufacturer, stereos from different manufacturers etc...

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[element-o.p.]

This was mentioned in a previous thread, but it's something I've known for years, so I'll repeat it anyway. When you get a computer with Linux preinstalled, you get a chance to see what hardware is inside the case (lspci, lsusb) and you get a chance to see what kernel options/device drivers are being used with that hardware (less /usr/src/linux/.config and lsmod).

While yes, a decent Linux sys admin could almost certainly figure out how to build the computer without that information, if you've got the information available, why not use it? *

* Off-topic, but enlightening, nonetheless: my wife recently purchased an e-machines computer that came with XP installed. I despise the...ahem..."feature"...that MS rolled into XP that requires you to call MS for validation if you change too much of the hardware, so I removed XP and installed Win2K on the e-machines PC. However, in order to find out what hardware was installed (2K didn't recognize the audio or video cards), I had to boot from a Knoppix CD, run lspci, then boot back into 2K to download the appropriate drivers. I found that rather amusing :)

Re:How Can I Buy An Apple Computer W/O An OS

[zsau]

Why is this relevant? Microsoft doesn't sell computers. Apple do. It's no surprise that Apple-branded computers run Apple's OS. Microsoft-branded computers I'd fully expect to run a Microsoft OS. But ... where can I get such a thing from?

Dell, OTOH, let me buy a laptop with either Intel Integrated Graphics, or an nVidia graphics card (even tho it's otherwise the same model!). Why shouldn't I think it reasonable to be able to buy a laptop with the operating system I prefer, too?

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[1u3hr]

Most people on /. would argue that the value of OEM windows is also less than zero. Not a problem, since this negative-value software is trivially removed. Win-win.

On a purely financial basis, it's sensible to buy Windows and throw it away. What burns people is that they're enriching Bill Gates with their purchase, even if they delete his software and never use it, and entrenching his monopoly. And the OEMs can state there is no demand for anything else; a vicious circle. It could get more vicious when "Trusted Computing" makes it harder and harder for non-MS OSs to use the hardware at all. With 100% of their sales Windows installed, the OEMs don't care if their hardware supports any other OS.

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[Kadin2048]

It's because the manufacturers figured out that people don't really care about pixel resolution; they only look at the size of the screen.

I.e., most people will look at a 17" screen and assume that it must be better than a 15" screen, because it's bigger. The size is the only metric that they'll use.

So, manufacturers have responded by building absurdly large screens into notebooks, and dropping the resolutions further and further down in order to cut costs.

Re:Naked PC == Parts

[julesh]

Generally though, if someone really wants a naked pc, they are probably capable of building it from parts.

Capable, yes. Able to justify it to their employer in a commercial environment? Probably not. It would go something like this:

"You want to do what?"
"Instead of buying these PCs from Dell, which come with a copy of Windows we don't need, I want to buy parts and assemble them into computers myself."
"How much money do we save?"
"About fifty dollars per machine."
"How long will this take?"
"Including testing, about half an hour per machine."
"OK. What about warranties?"
"All the parts will be warrantied for one year."
"The parts. Not the computers."
"Yes."
"So when one breaks, instead of returning the entire machine for service, you have to diagnose which part is faulty before we can return it."
"Yes."
"How long will that take?"
"About half an hour per incident."
"How much am I paying you?"
"Forty dollars per hour."
"If we ever decided to install Windows, how much would it cost to get copies to replace the ones we'll not be buying"
"About a hundred dollars each."
"Go call Dell."

Re:Why does it matter if it's free?

[ultranova]

Ironically, the only thing that manages layout flawlessly and respects font size prefs is Eclipse's SWT toolkit. MS stuff is absolutely nowhere.

This is hardly surprising, after all, SWT has been made to be cross-platform so there's less assumptions it can make about the underlaying system and more things it needs to query the system for. It is also immediately obvious when it makes such assumptions, since it will break on some supported platform, so the bugs can't accumulate over time. I'd imagine Swing, Qt and GTK should also work well for the same reason.

On the other hand, MS stuff is about as non-flexible as can be, since it has never had any kind of evolutionary pressure towards flexibility.