Microsoft puts pressure on PC vendors to not sell naked PCs

[iago]

I was thrilled when my original laptop came with no OS.  It was about $200 cheaper than a nearly identical laptop that came with Windows.  I hate that I'm almost forced to buy a system with Windows pre-installed, but according to MS, naked PCs encourage piracy.  They don't seem to realize that naked PCs ALSO encourage freedom. 

read more

[zorm]

I've never seen any hard evidence that such naked PCs are cheaper. Most of the naked PCs I've heard about are lower end models and such so they can't be compared. On the other end of the spectrum theres a company in town that sells linux laptops and workstations but they are way high end and as such they can't really be compared either.
 
Also you have to consider how many people out there actually could take advantage of a naked PC, its few and far between. Most people wouldn't know what to do with one or about other options. To me it'd be far more valuable to have them be able to pick which OS they want running on it. It would be rather simple then to just have to store image the harddrive(since a lot of stores like Best Buy will attempt to open+turn on any computer you buy anyhow) with the OS of choice.

[MyndFyre]

I've never seen any hard evidence that such naked PCs are cheaper.

I agree.  Plus, it's not uncommon for Microsoft to offer substantial bulk discounts to manufacturers for Windows.

[Newby]

It's cheaper / more economically efficient for the consumer or buyer to purchase Windows alongside their computer purchase.

Sure, I hate it that you really can't get a PC without an OS, but hey, the average consumer that buys a pre-built PC will want Windows. If you use BSD/Linux, odds are you'll end up getting a hand-me-down / building your own to use it on.

[iago]

I've never seen any hard evidence that such naked PCs are cheaper. Most of the naked PCs I've heard about are lower end models and such so they can't be compared. On the other end of the spectrum theres a company in town that sells linux laptops and workstations but they are way high end and as such they can't really be compared either.

I compared the one I bought (naked) to an equivalent one (with Windows).  They were both low end, but the naked one I bought was about $1300 and the one with Windows was a little over $1500.  That's a difference.  Although technically, the laptop came with (not installed) a cd for Thiz Linux.  I still have the cd somewhere..
 

Also you have to consider how many people out there actually could take advantage of a naked PC, its few and far between. Most people wouldn't know what to do with one or about other options. To me it'd be far more valuable to have them be able to pick which OS they want running on it. It would be rather simple then to just have to store image the harddrive(since a lot of stores like Best Buy will attempt to open+turn on any computer you buy anyhow) with the OS of choice.

I wish they would give me the option.  It's fine if most computers come with Windows, but it would be nice if I could give up the license they'd be giving me in exchange for $150 or something. 

It annoys me that Microsoft pressures them not to sell naked PCs, though.  Forcing people to buy Windows (or another OS) when they buy their computer isn't the best way to stop piracy. 

[iago]

Sure, I hate it that you really can't get a PC without an OS, but hey, the average consumer that buys a pre-built PC will want Windows. If you use BSD/Linux, odds are you'll end up getting a hand-me-down / building your own to use it on.

Unless it's a laptop.  And I almost exclusively use laptops for my personal computing (not serving, of course). 

[zorm]

I compared the one I bought (naked) to an equivalent one (with Windows).  They were both low end, but the naked one I bought was about $1300 and the one with Windows was a little over $1500.  That's a difference.  Although technically, the laptop came with (not installed) a cd for Thiz Linux.  I still have the cd somewhere..

I'm not really sure equivalent is good enough when you are only talking about $200. It hard to know what the discount these places are getting is but I suspect it is a large amount and that other variations between the two computers account for the majority of the price difference.

I wish they would give me the option.  It's fine if most computers come with Windows, but it would be nice if I could give up the license they'd be giving me in exchange for $150 or something. 

It annoys me that Microsoft pressures them not to sell naked PCs, though.  Forcing people to buy Windows (or another OS) when they buy their computer isn't the best way to stop piracy. 

I think attempting to get $ back for not getting Windows is unlikely to happen. I also accept that Microsoft may have some sort of lockin deal so the company may not be installing Windows on the computer but they are still paying for a license for it. This may account for the fact that there doesn't seem to be any real price difference.

Also I can see the argument for a considerable amount of piracy happening because of a computer being sold with no OS. A family might buy it without understanding exactly what it means, etc. Then if they call their local 'techy' to come and fix it the chances that hes going to install a pirated copy of windows is very high. I've heard about situations similar to this where the tech person will install lots of pirated software and such so I can see it happening.

[Ergot]

  Although technically, the laptop came with (not installed) a cd for Thiz Linux.  I still have the cd somewhere..
 
 

Burn (as in with fire) that CD now. It's for your own good.

[iago]

I compared the one I bought (naked) to an equivalent one (with Windows).  They were both low end, but the naked one I bought was about $1300 and the one with Windows was a little over $1500.  That's a difference.  Although technically, the laptop came with (not installed) a cd for Thiz Linux.  I still have the cd somewhere..

I'm not really sure equivalent is good enough when you are only talking about $200. It hard to know what the discount these places are getting is but I suspect it is a large amount and that other variations between the two computers account for the majority of the price difference.

The cost of Windows is non-zero.  That's too much for a piece of software that I have no intention of using. 

I wish they would give me the option.  It's fine if most computers come with Windows, but it would be nice if I could give up the license they'd be giving me in exchange for $150 or something. 

It annoys me that Microsoft pressures them not to sell naked PCs, though.  Forcing people to buy Windows (or another OS) when they buy their computer isn't the best way to stop piracy. 

I think attempting to get $ back for not getting Windows is unlikely to happen. I also accept that Microsoft may have some sort of lockin deal so the company may not be installing Windows on the computer but they are still paying for a license for it. This may account for the fact that there doesn't seem to be any real price difference.

Also I can see the argument for a considerable amount of piracy happening because of a computer being sold with no OS. A family might buy it without understanding exactly what it means, etc. Then if they call their local 'techy' to come and fix it the chances that hes going to install a pirated copy of windows is very high. I've heard about situations similar to this where the tech person will install lots of pirated software and such so I can see it happening.

As I said, having the option of coming with Windows is fine.  A typical family who doesn't know anything about the computer wouldn't understand what it means, so they would do what the guy at the store told them to, which I assume would be to get the Windows system.  I have no problem with that, and that'll solve most of the piracy problem with Microsoft worries about. 

What I want is for the OPTION to buy a computer that DOESN'T come with Windows.  I can assure Microsoft that I have no intention of pirating their OS, because I don't even USE their OS.  It's not fair to non-Microsoft customers who have to buy Microsoft's OS. Hell, I'd be happy if I got a computer for the same price without the OS.  It's the principle.. I don't WANT Windows!  I ripped off/threw out the product key that came with my current laptop because I don't plan on ever using it.   

[MyndFyre]

Hell, I'd be happy if I got a computer for the same price without the OS.

Then why bitch?  Rip off the product key and be done.

[iago]

Hell, I'd be happy if I got a computer for the same price without the OS.

Then why bitch?  Rip off the product key and be done.

Because somebody is being paid for the product by me, in some way.  I don't want to contribute to Microsoft's profits in any way. 

[Joe]

Not to mention that's a rhetorical situation. I doubt a computer company would offer you to have no OS for the same price. I think Dell offers -50$ or something for rejecting pro, maybe for not having home, something like that.

[Sidoh]

Not to mention that's a rhetorical situation.

Why do people ask questions if they don't want them answered?

[ darkdrake, laugh with me.  c'mon! ]

[dark_drake]

Not to mention that's a rhetorical situation.

Why do people ask questions if they don't want them answered?

[ darkdrake, laugh with me.  c'mon! ]

/chuckle
Good times, good times.

[Warrior]

I see where you're coming from, Windows sells it's software to OEM in bulk at dirt cheap rates. They just jack it up since they feel like it. Blame Sony/Dell/Whatever then.

I think a barebones laptop promotes freedom and choice and I think it should be an option for the more advanced users or maybe even have a "Select or Deselect" system of things included. However I don't think OEMs would go for this.

An alternative is buying an Intel Mac Laptop which can dualboot (Bootcamp or efi hacks) and is probably way cheaper