*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if they
had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows would
not be as large because there is no way of proving that they would
not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small little
niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have been
larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to sell
that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just doesn't
present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good computer
and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you know. You
have to do it by phone for most configurations - but you can do it.
OEM's chose to go with Windows because that was what sold - what
was easy for Joe-user to understand and utilize. It was what was
widely available at the time. There is a whole host of things -
but the OEMs were not forced by *Microsoft* to choose them. They
could have walked away. They may have had to agree to things
afterwards in order to participate in and get benefits from the OEM
programs - but they were not forced to become part of the OEM
programs (or stay a part of them) of Microsoft's by anything other
than their own bottom line. They chose. Perhaps it was the only
choice they could make and still eat/feed their family - but supply
and demand played a role there. Consumers wanted computers that
were easy to use and that ran all the software they had seen and
could easily acquire/use. Windows did this. *nix and OS X and
BeOS and OS/2 Warp (which ran my DOS games like a cheetah on crack
I might add.. And yes - that is a good thing) did not offer the
consumers what they wanted, so being a person whose livelihood
depended on it meant selling what the consumers wanted and/or (in
reality) you knew they would have to have tin order to do what they
wanted with their system and then maybe come back to you and
recommend you so you can make more money.
When I sold computers for many years - I did not sell OEM products.
I told my customers they would be getting retail software - so they
would have more choice and freedom as their computers aged. I had
few - if any - arguments about the extra $100 or more - depending
on the products they chose. I chose to educate my consumers and/or
sold to those who chose to educate themselves on the few options
available to them. However - most resellers/computer shop owners
look at the bottom line. The cheaper they get their machine out
there - the more they stand to make (because of increased sales to
an uninformed (and mostly uninterested) public and because they
spent less, but can charge the same in some cases.) It only makes
sense. Business sense. There's almost always a niche market
somewhere - but in OSes - those niches are not usually enough to
feed a family. heh
I know of many OEMs (anyone can be an OEM - that just means
"Original Equipment Manufacturer") that have chosen not to sell
Windows XP. It's happened many times over the years and many OEMs
actually do give a choice other than Microsoft OSes - some you
think do not actually do - if you call them and don't just
"click-click" your way through the order. Joe-Home-User will not
do this. Joe-Home-User does not usually know enough to do this and
they may discover they wouldn't choose to do this anyway, because
of what their stated purpose is for the computer and how much time
they are willing (and able) to put into using the system when they
get it.
It is a question - in the end - of usability. No matter how it
happened (lethargy on the part of competitors, luck, good timing,
business sense, "mob-like" tactics, combination of all of these,
whatever) - Microsoft is the dominant OS. If you want to sell
computers to Joe-Home-User and eat off the profits, you choose to
sell (at least offer) the OS that has the most return for thje
end-consumer. If you manufacturer software to make your living,
you create it for the OS that is out there en-masse. Doesn't mean
you cannot sell the other operating systems. Doesn't mean you
cannot manufacturer your software for other OSes. Just means you
didn't choose the path of least resistance.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.
In the end - it always comes back to what the end-consumers want
and if there is a viable choice available and marketed to
end-consumers. Sure - there are some manipulative games one can
play to push that in their favorable direction for them - but that
avenue is open to everyone involved. Happens every day. If the
end-consumers don't care and expect the one that screames the
loudest at them to be the one they need - that's what they buy and
you get the situation you are in now.
You can argue back-and-forth here all you want - but what it comes
down to is the end-consumer.
If they don't buy it, then there is nothing to sell.
If today - all consumers decided they were not going to buy Vista -
they were going to sit down and learn *nix, Mac OS X, etc.. Then
the trend would shift. Software writers would start writing for
whatever OS begins to be "the market leader" and the end-consumers
could just continue using their Windows XP OS for the necessities
until the shift had been made far enough to get rid of the old
clunker and use only the new OS and all the new apps
written/adapted for it.
Will it happen? Doubtful. Humans are lazy. If it works, is there
- can be "improved upon" and some of the old stuff continue to work
for a while - yeah - they'll go down the easy path. Could it
happen? Sure. My doubtful does not close the door. Not all human
beings are lazy. Some people like learning and adapting (I hope
they still exist - or we have reached extinction and all this is
moot anyway.) The choices are there. The ability to take and run
with those choices are there. There is nothing one
corporation/person can do about any of this either way. It comes
down to the choice of many people. Microsoft did not build their
"empire" alone. Lots of people made the choice to help add a brick
or two. Millions of people have decided in the end. (end-consumers,
software writers, system builders, larger
resellers, you name it..)
As for all of your machines having been purchased with the OS
pre-installed... and you being in compliance - etc. I don't care.
I really don't. Pirate, don't pirate, use Windows, use *nux/OS
X/etc - although it may have an effect on me indirectly - I choose
to not care what you do/use. If you did business with me and I
only had Linux and Open-Office - things might be different. Otherwise -
you will make up your mind and then me discussing it
until my fingers bleed from typing is not going to serve any
purpose. It's cool that you did that. It's cool that you chose to
buy your systems with the OS preinstalled. It's cool that you
choose to use applications that run on those systems. Heck - it's
cool that you choose to use other operating systems daily too. It
kinda sucks that your choices have been somewhat limited by the
choice of millions before you. That is the choice of what OS to
run and the choice of what applications you can utilize (because
you have to be using what everyone else is using or risk not being
able to do business/communicate with them and possibly not eat.)
However - know in the end that it was your choice to buy the system
that came pre-installed with a Microsoft OS. Know that, with a
little effort, you could have made a different choice. Yes - it
would have made things tougher on you, it could have caused you
grief when using your computer to communicate with others for
personal or business reasons. You would (possibly) have had to
come up with work-arounds for choosing to be different than
everyone else. And you might have folded at some point because you
saw the rest of the world was not going to change the way you hoped
and you grew tired of adapting to work with it while maintaining
your uniqueness. It all could have happened. Or it all could not
have.
Maybe you walk everywhere - or ride a bike (non-motorized). Maybe
your car is all electric or a hybrid. Maybe you make your own
bio-diesel from the McDonald's leftover grease. Perhaps you use
solar power or some alternative in your home. Maybe you buy only
naturally grown produce (no pesticides, etc.) Use only eggs from
chickens that ate natural food and either eat no meat or only eat
meat from cows who grazed on grass/wheat/etc. Maybe you chose
beta-max instead of VHS.. Perhaps you invested in laser-disc. Maybe you
use natural gas to heat your home and your hot water. Maybe you have made
your choices to be unique all the way and just
folded when it comes to the Operating System that runs on your
computer <- I don't know.
In the end - they are all still your choices. Doesn't matter how
much effort you might have had to put in to make them, the choices
exist. They may not be as heavily marketed as some others - but
someone decided to make the tougher ones or the alternatives
wouldn't exist at all - at least not for very long. There's is
always a choice. Just because one or more is not easy does not
mean you shouldn't take that path.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.