Hacker News Reader

Comment by grimborg | Hacker News Reader

I bought a ThinkPad recently in Europe, and there was no way for me not to buy Windows. I don't need it and I don't want it. I don't even have it: I wiped the hard disk immediately after getting it. I could choose what memory I wanted, what screen I wanted or how much hard disk I wanted (SSD or regular HDD), but I could not choose not to get Windows. The same is true for the great majority of laptops.

Over the years I've wasted a lot of money buying copies of Windows that I never used and that I never wanted.

I very much doubt that this is so because of convenience: it is so because it gives more money to Microsoft.

It's outrageous.

So, yes, I wish we could get over the Microsoft Tax thing. Call it Microsoft Mandatory Purchase or Microsoft Gratious Gift for Mere Pennies if you wish, it doesn't matter.

View on HN

Oddly enough, I bought a MacBook last year, and there was no way for me to not buy OSX. I don't need it, and I don't want it. I installed Windows 7 immediately after getting it.

Of course, I knew that when buying a MacBook I would end up paying a small amount for the development of OSX even though I had no intention of using it.

I had options, you had options. We chose the option we did because in balance that was the best option for us respectively.

Is it wrong to point out that you would have had better options if manufacturers made this bundling optional? And that the range of options seem to decrease over time? (Eg. you can't buy Windows RT and install it on an iPad).

Options don't come for free though. Every option in the chain doubles the number of configurations that the manufacturer has to maintain. So, yes, better for consumer, but not better / easier for OEMs.

The ARM market is different due to many drivers and specs not being open-sourced. In some cases, the drivers for the SoC are hidden behind an NDA and you have to be a hardware partner to get access to these drivers. Trying to install Windows RT on an iPad would likely result in finding driver incompatibilities.

There's just one company that sells computers with OSX pre-installed.

Legally. ;-)

  > I very much doubt that this is so because of
  > convenience: it is so because it gives more money
  > to Microsoft.

When Microsoft was throwing its weight around with OEMs to not offer alternative OSes, it was not because a handful of enthusiasts would have avoided paying an extra $35 on their computers. It was to make sure that alternative OSes remained a niche because they weren't hardware vendor supported.

That said, I've seen places with Microsoft shops would have wanted to avoid the 'Microsoft Tax.' I remember each machine in University had two Microsoft licenses. One that came with the purchase from Dell, and the other one purchased separately so that we could do more enterprise-y stuff with it. I'm sure that on a purchase of 1000s of desktops, avoiding $35/machine would have been nice.

Working at a semi-large-ish IT company here and the computers we buy come without any OS. So larger entities than a single person apparently have ways of purchasing large volumes of computers and avoiding buying OSes multiple times.

I should have qualified that my experience was from ~2001 or so. I guess it's also possible that the person doing the purchasing was incompetent, or didn't care about the savings because it wasn't their money.

The latter may even be a valid reason. At least when universities here (Germany) are given a certain budget for certain things they have to use it up, lest they get less the next year. So there often is a rush at the end of the year to spend all remaining money on office supplies and other things that are not strictly necessary or need renewal, just to not get cuts the next year.

> I bought a ThinkPad recently in Europe, and there was no way for me not to buy Windows.

You could have just as easily purchased something that wasn't a ThinkPad. That's akin to complaining that the iPhone comes with iOS on it, or that Mac's come pre-installed with Mountain Lion.

You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with. Consider that with Windows is the norm, and because of that, it's easy to produce in greater numbers. Producing an exception, or a custom, will drive up the price.

> You could have just as easily purchased something that wasn't a ThinkPad.

At least here in the UK, it's not easy to get any computer without Windows - unless you want to shell out much more for a Mac. Dell no longer offer Ubuntu, and there's no local equivalent of System76. I found a small shop that builds unbranded desktops and will install Linux, but their laptops have Windows bundled.

> You also ignore the fact that it's probably more expensive to provide a laptop without Windows then with.

But on the rare occasions that a big name offers laptops with Linux - or without an OS - it is cheaper than comparable Windows machines.

The fact that Dell doesn't offer Linux as an option means there's no market for it. Come WRT and iOS you won't even have the option to easily install a different OS.

> I very much doubt that this is so because of convenience: it is so because it gives more money to Microsoft.

Well, most people want Windows pre-installed. So, is it more/less/equally convenient for manufacturers to maintain a 2nd inventory for the small percentage of people who do not want Windows installed? And would the overall cost associated with this 2nd level of inventory divided by the total number of PC's sold without an OS be greater than or less than the amount you are paying for Windows when you buy a new PC?

I don't know the answer, but it's something to think about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com