Seems like it makes a lot more sense to buy a computer without Windows preinstalled.
> Device manufacturers and vendors should not impose an operating system or software on consumers
This is not a reasonable expectation.
Hardware needs software to work, and software runs on an operating system. You can't expect every vendor in the work of every kind of product you can buy to offer you a slightly different version than you would like to buy.
The key word here is "impose". I can imagine a world where at time of purchase you would select which OS (if any) you would want pre-installed on the machine. Even a checkbox for Yes/No Windows would be an improvement.
And then people go to Best Buy and see there's a model on the shelf that looks to be the exact same but its $60 cheaper, so they buy that and then realize they have no idea what to do with it so I guess this brand of laptop just sucks, Macs don't have that problem I guess I'll just buy those instead.
Apple should also be forced to allow the user freedom to choose at least one other OS. But maybe thats too much to ask. I think it's not too much too ask, but I am probably an outlier.
Dont start about Asahi please. I know it exists.
Okay we force Apple to give the consumer freedom to choose at least one other OS. But none other exists, so what should Apple do? Create a second operating system themselves to give the illusion of choice? Be forced to bankroll an independent team such as Asahi (which you don't seem to consider valid)?
Well, you asked what's wrong with it, and being entirely unusable on a lot of the target hardware its trying to address sure seems like a problem. I didn't realize I needed to give them money to properly speak true statements.
I don't blame them, it's not like Apple makes it easy for them. They're definitely working hard on the project and I wish them luck. But one can't act like it's actually a viable OS to generally run on M series hardware. It kind of works on a select few models.
I have bought many computers that have Windows installed, they have all been trivial to replace with Linux installs. On almost all of them, I never even booted into windows once.
Was it wasted money going to Microsoft? I don't know, I bought the computers because the price point worked for me. I have also built a lot of computers myself, but most of the time my home built machines end up costing more than the pre-built one that has windows installed (although my parts are probably nicer, but maybe not always).
This is like a ton of things you buy. Sometimes they include parts you don't want, but if the price is good, it doesn't matter that you discard part of it.
The payment is the real problem here. It's like if every meal you bought included a $1 fee to McDonald's even though they had nothing to do with it. That would be very evil anti-competitive stuff, right? Or if the fee is for a McDonald's promotional poster they put in the box and you throw away, same thing.
Linux wouldn't be zero. There's still a cost involved in installing the OS, even if it's miniscule and automatable. You can bet your life that laptop manufacturers are going to charge you for it.
And properly supporting it as well. Look at all the major brands supporting Linux on their computers, several even go so far as maintaining their own distros.
I may be of a different age, but in my time it was common to buy computers without any OS pre-installed. It was on you to install one (from CD, floppy, whatever).
Of course, vendors selling PCs often also sold OS's...
But I also believe your recollection is erroneous or must differ by region because I was there as early as the 80s and computers sold without an operating system weren't common. If you were buying a PC clone in the 90s you could buy it without the Windows license, of course, but the default was to include it.
Even before PCs, computers typically shipped with BASIC, which was their operating system of sort. Macs, Amigas, they all shipped with an OS as well.
Maybe not, but as I understand it, languages were one of Gates' key bargaining chips in negotiating the terms of the MS/PC-DOS deal that put Microsoft in a position to start licensing to OEM's on a per-CPU basis in the first place.
I had an XT. Not IBM. It had BASIC ROM. Everyone I know who had an XT (8088 or 8086) had BASIC in the ROM. None was IBM and all were different companies.
Actually (and I'm being pedantic here, I admit), only IBM made an XT, the others were all XT-clones or compatibles. And you could get a compatible ROM that contained BASIC. I also owned a non-IBM XT clone, which did not have BASIC in ROM.
Yes, it may take some work these days. I was addressing the claim that it's "not a reasonable expectation" with a pretty poor rationale provided. The rationale applied equally well in the 80's and 90's, and no one then said "It's unreasonable to sell without an OS."
Sorry but this isn't the 70s. Even businesses expect devices to somewhat work out of the box so it's completely unreasonable to everyone except people who buy things like Raspberry PI, which are a tiny minority.
I'm sure they did sell computers with Windows pre-installed in the 90's. But almost every place also sold computers without any OS. It was not at all unusual.
The computing world wasn't just in the US, you know. Microsoft didn't have a deal with all PC manufacturers in the world.
Oh I am interested in buying a piece of hardware, they thought it would be convenient for customers to pre-install software I don’t want, and make money with it (the real convenience), and if I am to demand that I pay/ask only for the hardware, my expectation is unreasonable.
Yeah, one of the reasons why I chose my current Acer laptop was that it didn't come with Windows pre-installed. That made it cheaper and I didn't have to give money to Microsoft.
I hear what you're saying, but there are issues when you continue the line of thought one step.
Imposing Windows implies requiring agreements to unknown eula's at the time of purchase. Consider Windows is there in the first place because of anticompetitive practices. Stuff like this is unreasonable too. I think moreso. I guess it comes down to if you think consumers or big tech is more deserving of protection.
Also these models are usually expensive. Cheap/low-end models don't have this option ever. Depending on the financial situation, the "just buy the alternative" may not be possible. Some people here need to touch grass, this campaign is probably not particularly concerned with their configured 2k+ dev machines.
Hardware needs software to work but hardware should not need specific software to work but rather any software that implements the other side of a set of standards.
i think its reasonable that people who sell computer monitors also demand you purchase a computer or other output device from them. Why do you feel differently here? after all, a computer monitor needs a computer or other output device to work, no?
> Device manufacturers and vendors should not impose an operating system or software on consumers
This is not a reasonable expectation.
Hardware needs software to work, and software runs on an operating system. You can't expect every vendor in the work of every kind of product you can buy to offer you a slightly different version than you would like to buy.