Is It Time For Computers To Be Sold Without An Operating System?
- 6
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
I had previously reported that the Globalisation Institute in a report they made to the European Union last week, had recommended that the lack of choice for a operating system was keeping Microsoft in a monopolistic situation, and that computers should be sold with no operating system. When one thinks about this recommendation, it gives rise to other questions as well. How did it become standard practice through out the industry that almost all computers now come with Windows installed? Is there some kind of a rule, ordinance, statue, law or other legal standing that has fused Windows to the PC?
If one wants to purchase a PC without a operating system, you have limited abilities to do so. You can either build your own computer, which most people do not have the techno savey to do, or have a custom system built for you without a operating system. Recently Dell has begun to offer Linux based systems, but this is also limited to a single distribution of Ubuntu. Dell had previously offered what are called ‘white boxes’, computers without an operating system, but that practice has stopped for some unknown reason.
Rumors have been circulated that Microsoft has forced deals upon the OEM’s which may have prevented companies from previously selling computers with no OS. The MS fear seems to be that a computer with no OS promotes piracy. Whether or not this is true, one could conclude that it is strange that up until recently, Windows was the only option available when purchasing a PC and it is almost impossible to purchase a OEM computer without an OS.
But what about consumer choice? Shouldn’t we the consumer have the option to buy a PC with no OS? If I have a legal copy of Windows XP, shouldn’t I be allowed to install it on a new computer system without having to pay for a preinstalled copy of Vista?
What do you think? Should OEM’s be offering computers with no OS?
Comments welcome.
[tags]microsoft, windows, operating system, none, oem’s, linux, ubuntu,[/tags]
6 Comments
Scott King
September 28th, 2007
at 5:25pm
I think MS is leveraging the OEM’s very hard to push their OS over others or none.After all, the “OS god” must be obeyed. Most users would cringe at the thought of installing an OS from scratch,even though it is for the most part not as bad as it used to be. Power users can and do build their own boxes, so installing the OS of their choice is not a problem. Although it would be nice to buy a blank box, there is probably not enough demand to warrant the “cost”. However, call up Dell and order a thousand and I would suspect you could get them no problem.
Barry
September 28th, 2007
at 6:33pm
Well maybe.
You really can’t buy a car without engine. So why should computers be different? However on some models you do get a choice of engines.
Perhaps the computers should come with a choice of operating systems. And I don’t mean the choice between Windows XP and Windows Vista or Vista basic, Vista Premium and Vista DULLimate.
Ron Schenone
September 28th, 2007
at 6:56pm
Hello Scott,
Good point about demand.
Heh Barry,
I like the analogy of cars and computers
mota
November 5th, 2007
at 3:44pm
I agree with the post, I should be able to purchase a computer without an operating system if I please. Yet “empty” or “white” boxes are almost impossible to find. The car and pc analogy is a perfect example, but I don’t think the OS is (or should be) considered the engine of a computer, It should be considered more of the interior, such as the seats in which you drive and travel with. But this is just my opinion.
Bobzilla
April 4th, 2008
at 2:43pm
While I don’t totally agree with comparing a computer to a car, here’s my view. So you want to compare the computer OS to the car engine, that’s fine. Most car companies build their own engines. Only “one” computer company builds its OS… Apple. The other computer companies buy an OS from Microsoft. Well, you have a few that use a Linux distro; and these are usually very low end machines (hardware wise) to say the least. The average person is just not going to buy a car with out an engine, same with buying a computer without an OS.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see more OS choices. I’m typing this on an Ubuntu box… and it did not come pre-installed. Had to pay the Microsoft tax!
Yves Legault
October 29th, 2009
at 7:31am
Having captive customers is a sure way to make money… But when your offering is not as good as it can be, it becomes a problem. Consumers should get the biggest bang for the buck they can get.
Microsoft just not live up to that…
Apple has made progress toward that…
As for linux related OS, in regard to those that are sold, their price to power ration is quite good, while those that are free should be considered under different criterias.
Choice is ultimately a good thing for consumers. But that situation call for consumers to be more knowledgable
Now, 2 years after the original post, I see there is much left to be done toward increasing choice to consumers.
YLL