> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
I'm not from there, it seems. The best you can do here is build your own PC, or go with a distributor (typically Dell/Lenovo) whose configuration allows opting-out of buying an OS. Needless to say that it's not a mainstream purchasing behaviour.
> MSFT have spent a lot of time, effort and dev years ensuring that their customers can run their software without breakage and downtime.
That wasn't my point at all. It was to stress how the ludicrous track-record of Microsoft anticompetitive practices, establishing and sustaining a decades-long monopoly, barred non-expert and non-enthusiasts from experiencing (possibly favourable) alternatives.
> It was to stress how the ludicrous track-record of Microsoft anticompetitive practices, establishing and sustaining a decades-long monopoly, barred non-expert and non-enthusiasts from experiencing (possibly favourable) alternatives.
My point served to counter this very statement.
There are alternatives (Linux, macOS, FreeBSD etc. etc.) but none are favorable like you say. A big part of why this is the excellent job that MSFT did as a technical force looking to consolidate Windows as the OS standard all those years ago. The efforts taken by them to ensure broad based application support and customer research and support on Windows has contributed to the continued perpetuation of their monopoly. Were they ever the most technically advanced option? No. Is any of their software products absolutely perfect and without deficiencies? Also no. And yet they are possible the leading software company in the world. This is NOT solely due to their anticompetitive practices. Saying so is a form of denial about the true state of things.
I gave Canonical and Ubuntu as an example of someone else who has tried to step in the breach and failed to force out MSFT as an alternative for non-experts and non-enthusiasts. Ubuntu and the FOSS community are many things but friendly to beginners and non-technical people is not one of them. There have been tremendous advances in the past decade but we're nowhere close to this being the Year of the Linux Desktop. The bottom line is that mainstream (i.e. non-technical and non-enthusiast) consumers will choose to put their money where they get the best value and that remains MSFT and Windows.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
> 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?
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.