Don't want to pay the 'Windows Tax' (Score 1)

Here's another perspective (I think...I haven't read all 1000 replies yet). You don't want to pay for a copy of Windows that you are not going to use. But the price of non-Windows computers are higher, if available at all (not including Macs). Computers are manufactured and sold at a razor-thin margin. Software, peripherals and the extra warranties are where most of these companies make their real money. Most (if not all) of these companies support Windows only, so that's where they plan on making their money. To change production for a small percentage of machines is expensive. In addition, it doesn't work with their business plan, because they can't easily sell their peripherals and support services. It is similar to cell phone sales. The phones are cheap or free when you get them with a particular service, because they make their money on the service, not the phones. But they have to ensure service over a given period of time to recoup the cost of the hardware. Companies have tried to do the same with PCs. They gave you a free PC in return for a contract for internet service. unfortunately, it takes a certain sized customer base to support this type of arrangement. Otherwise you don't overcome the expenses that the business itself generates. Microsoft is not directly subsidizing the PC market (from what I have heard, OEMs pay only a slightly reduced price for MS licenses). But because of the installed base, these companies have been able to create an enormous market for additional products and services where they can make their money. One thing that I have always found interesting is the apparent double-standard. One of the reasons that MS is being sued is because they are bundling functionality into the O/S, or with the system. But wouldn't the same argument be used against Apple if they had 90% of the market and controlled the hardware, O/S and software development and continued to include Media management, players, DVD/CD burning software, web browsers, etc. as they already do? Anyway, I'm getting off track...Linux is generally distributed free of charge. A much larger percentage of Linux users are self-supporting, or they use the user community. Most of them would probably decline any additional warranty on the computer, since it is unneccessary. I do when I get a one now with Windows. But it is the large installed base of neophyte computer users that DO purchase support, unneccesary add-ons and upgrades, as well as pay for help later on when their service has expired, that subsidize cheap computers for the rest of us. These are the same people that sales-people routinely over-sell to. Hardware costs continue to drop, but so does the margin of profit. As a result, it costs more to manufacture a computer that is different from the norm, and they can expect that they will likely lose money on the purchase without increasing the price (and probably even if they do). Incidentally, I would guess that no matter what PC-based system you purchase, money is still flowing to Microsoft. I may be wrong, but I would guess that manufacturers incur fees to Microsoft to ensure compatibility with Windows and to earn the Windows Logo for their products. So the development of the system board, processor, modem, NIC, etc. probably created income for Microsoft already. OK - I've opened my big mouth...flame away! Randy