3 ms·

> I wish this were a more accessible path for non-tech people. It should be forbidden to ship PCs with Windows preinstalled, unless the user made it a consciou

by ezst 2y ago

> I wish this were a more accessible path for non-tech people. It should be forbidden to ship PCs with Windows preinstalled, unless the user made it a conscious purchase decision (and offered to choose between several options). I suspect fewer and fewer users would be willing to fork hundreds of bucks for something that's objectively terrible (and only getting worse), tech literacy would only improve as a result. But then you can bet Microsoft lobbying won't let that happen.

fennecbutt 2y ago
Shouldn't it therefore be forbidden to ship phones with android preinstalled? And also forbidden to ship phones with, gaaaasp, iOS preinstalled?
arp242 2y ago
When the first Asus Eee laptops came out they had Linux installed. They later also did Windows XP versions. This was the first (and probably only) time you could find Linux machines in most mainstream computer stores. The Linux version was better than XP in every way you can measure: cheaper, faster, easier (more optimized for those 7" screens). And these "netbooks" were just intended for browsing the net, so it doesn't matter all that much which system you run. I worked at a computer store at the time, and the Linux machines sold poorly. People wanted Windows, because that's what they're used to. Consumers are very price-sensitive, but many opted to pay more. All of this was a long time ago, but I doubt it would be very different today. Microsoft really doesn't need a "lobby" to keep the majority of machines Windows by default. People want what they're used to, because that's what's working for them. why do you think there is so much complaining every time Gnome or Firefox changes something?
- ezst 2y ago
  > People wanted Windows, because that's what they're used to. which is exactly what I'm talking about, that's the force that keeps competition inexistent: there can't be exposure to alternatives if the alternatives are not given equal visibility. Now, let's repeat what Asus did by making it into the law that resellers must offer 3/4 OS alternatives, and let's wait out a few more terrible Windows releases to see if a trend emerges. > People want what they're used to, because that's what's working for them. Understandable, but in practice Microsoft keeps breaking this deal with end-user having no say in the matter (did people overwhelmingly ask for gaming ads and XBox uninstallable links in W7? tiles in W8? Dumbed-down settings in W10? Bullshit AI in W11? …). Now compare this to running a regular upgradeable (or even rolling) linux distro, which one do you think offers the least disruption on the longer run?
varunnrao 2y ago
> It should be forbidden to ship PCs with Windows preinstalled, unless the user made it a conscious purchase decision (and offered to choose between several options). I don't know where you're buying PCs but where I'm from there is always an option to buy the PC with FreeDOS at a discount of about ~$20-30 compared to the Windows version. Lately, I also see an increase in Ubuntu computers. > But then you can bet Microsoft lobbying won't let that happen. I feel "MSFT lobbying" isn't charitable at all to what MSFT and their devs have achieved. You have to give credit where it's due. MSFT have spent a lot of time, effort and dev years ensuring that their customers can run their software without breakage and downtime. This is a non-trivial aspect that most people who don't use Windows often dismiss. MSFT have made themselves the standard platform because of their broad support. This is no mean feat. Canonical has tried for almost 20 years at this point and have barely made a dent with Ubuntu.
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  And where are you buying PCs? Microsoft hostages want to know.
- jorvi 2y ago
  > MSFT have spent a lot of time, effort and dev years ensuring that their customers can run their software without breakage and downtime I don’t know about that, but they have spent a lot of hours making sure you can run .exe’s from 30 years back, which is wildly valuable to slow-moving corporations.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    > I don’t know about that, but they have spent a lot of hours making sure you can run .exe’s from 30 years back, which is wildly valuable to slow-moving corporations. Which ones? There are tools like dosbox to get old DOS programs running again.
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  Web browsers are remarkably backwards compatible as well. 20 year old websites continue to work fine. The only difference is that the web platform wasn't very capable 20 years ago.

by ezst 2y ago

fennecbutt 2y ago

Shouldn't it therefore be forbidden to ship phones with android preinstalled? And also forbidden to ship phones with, gaaaasp, iOS preinstalled?

arp242 2y ago

When the first Asus Eee laptops came out they had Linux installed. They later also did Windows XP versions. This was the first (and probably only) time you could find Linux machines in most mainstream computer stores. The Linux version was better than XP in every way you can measure: cheaper, faster, easier (more optimized for those 7" screens). And these "netbooks" were just intended for browsing the net, so it doesn't matter all that much which system you run. I worked at a computer store at the time, and the Linux machines sold poorly. People wanted Windows, because that's what they're used to. Consumers are very price-sensitive, but many opted to pay more. All of this was a long time ago, but I doubt it would be very different today. Microsoft really doesn't need a "lobby" to keep the majority of machines Windows by default. People want what they're used to, because that's what's working for them. why do you think there is so much complaining every time Gnome or Firefox changes something?

ezst 2y ago
> People wanted Windows, because that's what they're used to. which is exactly what I'm talking about, that's the force that keeps competition inexistent: there can't be exposure to alternatives if the alternatives are not given equal visibility. Now, let's repeat what Asus did by making it into the law that resellers must offer 3/4 OS alternatives, and let's wait out a few more terrible Windows releases to see if a trend emerges. > People want what they're used to, because that's what's working for them. Understandable, but in practice Microsoft keeps breaking this deal with end-user having no say in the matter (did people overwhelmingly ask for gaming ads and XBox uninstallable links in W7? tiles in W8? Dumbed-down settings in W10? Bullshit AI in W11? …). Now compare this to running a regular upgradeable (or even rolling) linux distro, which one do you think offers the least disruption on the longer run?

varunnrao 2y ago

> It should be forbidden to ship PCs with Windows preinstalled, unless the user made it a conscious purchase decision (and offered to choose between several options). I don't know where you're buying PCs but where I'm from there is always an option to buy the PC with FreeDOS at a discount of about ~$20-30 compared to the Windows version. Lately, I also see an increase in Ubuntu computers. > But then you can bet Microsoft lobbying won't let that happen. I feel "MSFT lobbying" isn't charitable at all to what MSFT and their devs have achieved. You have to give credit where it's due. MSFT have spent a lot of time, effort and dev years ensuring that their customers can run their software without breakage and downtime. This is a non-trivial aspect that most people who don't use Windows often dismiss. MSFT have made themselves the standard platform because of their broad support. This is no mean feat. Canonical has tried for almost 20 years at this point and have barely made a dent with Ubuntu.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago
And where are you buying PCs? Microsoft hostages want to know.
jorvi 2y ago
> MSFT have spent a lot of time, effort and dev years ensuring that their customers can run their software without breakage and downtime I don’t know about that, but they have spent a lot of hours making sure you can run .exe’s from 30 years back, which is wildly valuable to slow-moving corporations.
- hiatus 2y ago
  > I don’t know about that, but they have spent a lot of hours making sure you can run .exe’s from 30 years back, which is wildly valuable to slow-moving corporations. Which ones? There are tools like dosbox to get old DOS programs running again.
nolist_policy 2y ago
Web browsers are remarkably backwards compatible as well. 20 year old websites continue to work fine. The only difference is that the web platform wasn't very capable 20 years ago.